A couple of days ago I visited the AIA's Archaeology Watch resource page. I have visited the site several times before, but I have always glossed over the first little paragraph at the top of the page. This time, however, the little blurb about the Antiquities Act caught my eye. I was well aware that the AIA (Archaeological Institute of America), founded in 1879, was chartered by an Act of the U.S. Congress in 1906, but I had not realized until then that its charter coincided with President Theodore Roosevelt's passage of the Antiquities Act and the role the AIA played in it is development. This may not be news to anyone but me, but I founded it interesting for a couple of reasons.
The Antiquities Act was supported by the AIA and lawmakers in order to give the American president power to counter looters and 'pot hunters' from destroying Native American cultural heritage in the American West [a Wikipedia article on the Act is also available - caveat emptor].
The AIA has been actively involved in raising awareness on problem of pillage and advocating protective legislation now for over 100 years. The AIA is frequently targeted by dealers for its stance on cultural property issues. In light of this fact, I find it even more peculiar that several antiquities dealers attempt to characterize the AIA's position on the illicit trade in antiquities and looting as 1.) a recent development and 2.) a deliberate attempt to exclude "independent scholars" [i.e. dealers/collectors] from participating in academic discourse (for example, see my discussion at Numismatics and Archaeology: "'Dilettanti and Shopmen': Divergent Interests in Looting and Cultural Heritage Issues," 7 May 2008). Is this just one component of the tactics employed by profiteers, who attempt to portray their activities as scholarly in their public-relations battle with archaeologists and cultural preservation advocates? (cf. J.L. Hall, "The Fig and the Spade: Countering the Deceptions of Treasure Hunters," AIA Archaeology Watch. 15 Aug. 2007).
For a very long time there has been a clear difference between the interests of scholars and scientists and those who exploit our history for mere financial profit. The public should not be deceived. The AIA has a long legacy of supporting efforts to protect cultural heritage from destruction.
ICOMOS Letter to PRC
2 days ago
3 comments:
I must disagree with several statements in this post and would counter as follows:
1. Most collectors and dealers agree that there should be protections of archaeological sites worldwide. The disagreement is over the methods that should be employed to achieve that end. Self-help measures in source countries, particularly laws that treat citizens fairly (like the UK PAS and Treasure Act) are the right answer.
Our own laws should be narrowly tailored to protect archaeological sites, and to encourage source countries not to overreach (as China has done in its request for import restrictions for artifacts dating to 1911-- See Atwood article posted elsewhere on this blog). Broad import restrictions that shift the burden of proof onto the holder of the artifact depart from what is considered fair in our system of jurisprudence. (Such burden shifting is behind much of the opposition to the tribunals for terrorism suspects.)
It is disengenuous to claim that the provisions of the Antiquities Act (which are limited to federal land and which have no burden shifting provisions) are one and the same with what SAFE and the AIA advocate today. Opposition to burden shifting and state control over anything and everything old motivates much of the opposition to what are billed as "protective measures." It is simply not as "black and white" as the post maintains.
2. The assumption that dealers in antiquities and coins are only motivated by "profit" denies the fact that many such dealers devote their entire lives to the study of the artifacts they sell and many also are strong supporters of academic institutions that study and preserve such artifacts like the ANS in NY. Where is the "profit" in that?
3. The motives of members of the archaeological community are not always as "pure" as they are portrayed.
Access means success in the world of archaeology. But access can come at a high moral price that some have been all too willing to pay. Thus, we have the spectacle of archaeologists treating with rogue regimes like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the face of international sanctions or praising China's devotion to archaeology in Tibet in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. For more, see:
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/04/tarik-aziz-goes-on-trial-for-executions.html and
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/04/tibet-olympics-and-chinese-request-for.html
As for "money grubbing," the prospect of financial support in an underfunded field like archaeology may encourage some to act in a manner that is not exactly above reproach.
In that regard, I hope SAFE will ask the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI) to devulge the value of any donations in money or in kind that it has received from either the Cypriot Government or the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation. Certainly, CAARI's behind the scenes lobbying for import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type benefitted both.
This in turn raises substantial questions about whether CAARI received any quid pro quo from these entities for this effort. For more, see:
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/05/cash-and-caari-cyprus-american.html
One thing is clear. Those who claim moral superiority should themselves be above reproach.
Sincerely,
Peter Tompa
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your comments.
If dealers and collectors agree there should be protective measures, then what steps are they actively taking to ensure the material they buy and sell is not illicitly excavated or exported? Most are still very secretive about their sources and business practices. It is one thing to say they abhor the trafficking in antiquities, but then to ask few, if any, questions of their suppliers and purchase everything in “good faith” (some of these issues are discussed in Brodie, N. 2006. "Smoke and Mirrors," in E. Robson, L. Treadwell, and C. Gosden (eds.) Who Owns Objects: the Ethics and Politics of Collecting Cultural Artefacts. Oxford: Oxbow Books). Certainly, schemes like the
Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) have done much good, and many “source countries” may well benefit from their implementation. They are, however, not the “cure-all” end for the trafficking in illicit antiquities . Indeed, many finders in Britain still do not report their finds and gangs of nighthawks still widely operate in that country in spite of the scheme. David Gill’s
blog has discussed the benefits and inadequacies of the scheme. Import restrictions are, in my opinion, beneficial because they allow our government to curb the flow of antiquities that are recently looted out of a source country and require documentation for export, which the laws of most source countries require anyway. Supposing we had import restrictions on ancient coins with Great Britain, coins could still be imported if they were properly recorded and granted an export license.
Many dealers in your organization have recognized that material is often illegally exported and dug up in source countries and seem to have little qualms about trading in it. See a couple of comments from one dealer
here and here.
Many dealers do operate full-time and can make huge profits from their endeavors (see comments in my post –
“Dilettanti and Shopmen”:...). I find it interesting those that seem to be the strongest financial backers of the lobbying efforts are the large auction houses and some of the most vocal, including the ACCG’s Executive Director and founder, do have relatively substantial inventories. His own inventory exceeded a quarter of a million dollars when I checked in April. It can be a very lucrative business. In this context, it is odd that some dealers then feel they must counter with mere obfuscation, arguing the simple equation “collecting/dealing = scholarship” or alleging conspiracies of archaeologists infiltrating the government and warming up with dictators simply for a publication.
Call me a cynic, but pretending like looting and the destruction of cultural heritage is not an important and widespread problem and touting ethical behavior while maintaining secrecy in trade practices and opposing regulation, sounds to me very similar to the way some coal and oil companies lobby against environmentalists, alternative energy sources, and pretend climate change is fiction. Regulation is not as profitable for dealers as the lack of regulation, and so they oppose it.
All best,
Nathan
Nathan,
Thanks for your response. I guess we have to agree to disagre on whether the ancient coin trade is as lucrative as you seem to think it is. It is probably a matter of different perspectives.
On regulation, I think most dealers would not oppose it as long as they view it as reasonable. The problem with the present "one size fits all" import restriction regime is that it treats imports of major antiquities the same as imports of minor antiquities. The stringent documentation requirments (nvolving multiple declarations of an artifact's whereabouts) may be practical for some large antiquities, but in my opinion, they were never meant to cover things as common as coins.
Best regards,
Peter Tompa
Post a Comment