Earlier this month it was announced that Shelby White would be returning two pieces from her collection to Greece.
For further details see:
Sphere: Related Content
Heritage Action is a British grassroots organization concerned about the protection of the cultural heritage. It describes itself as a group of ordinary people standing firm and taking ethical, responsible action to defend extraordinary places. These extraordinary places are the historic landscapes of various regions of Britain, with their numerous traces and monuments left by the ancient inhabitants who had lived there before. This is the common cultural heritage and yet sorely threatened by numerous agencies and elements of the modern way of life. They say: “We believe that this generation holds its heritage in trust for future generations and we should never break this trust. From this comes our single purpose — to build a powerful voice for action on all threatened heritage places”.
Heritage Action is a rallying point for anyone who feels that society is deaf to the threats to heritage places and aims to help individual voices to be heard loud and clear by the public, the media and the authorities. “We aim to promote an appreciation of the value of these places, highlight threats to them, and encourage the public to become involved in responsible but vigorous action to preserve them. Each individual threat needs publicity and, if necessary, pressure on site owners, commercial interests, local authorities, and heritage bodies.”
It is the latter field that the group has been making its presence felt in recent years.
The organization however has a more specific shared interest with SAFE. It has recently identified the exploitation of archaeological sites and monuments of Britain as a source of collectables as a threat to their integrity and heritage values. Last year it began a campaign to heighten awareness of this, "metal detecting, calling time on erosion". One element of which was a so-called “erosion counter” which attempts to show in real time the scale of the undocumented damage this hobby is doing to the archaeological heritage of the British Isles. This should be drawn to the attention of all those collectors and dealers out there who claim that the looting problem in the UK has been solved by the Portable Antiquities Scheme which they argue is therefore a pattern that should be followed eslewhere… Even if the Heritage Action estimate is wrong, and the number of artefacts actually being removed and the associated information lost without any record is a half or third of what those figures suggest, would the rate of loss be acceptable? In fact, I personally think there is evidence (which I will be publishing is due course) to suggest that this estimate might be a little on the low side.
Sphere: Related Content
Hugh Eakin has a long review article in this week's New York Review of Books. The kicker is in footnote one:
Citing the June survey, recent reports in the Art Newspaper and The Wall Street Journal have somewhat breathlessly suggested that little or no looting in southern Iraq actually occurred. To the contrary, the findings provide further evidence that organized plunder was both extensive and selective, bearing out earlier indications that some large sites were not affected.
Sphere: Related Content
"The archaeological sites of Iraq, precious for their bearing on human history, became especially vulnerable to looters during two wars. Much of the looting evidence has been anecdotal up to now, but here satellite imagery has been employed to show which sites were looted and when. Sites of all sizes from late Uruk to early Islamic were targeted for their high value artifacts, particularly just before and after the 2003 invasion."
Archaeologist Elizabeth Stone comments in her much-discussed article adapted on the SAFE website from the journal Antiquity. that the "total area looted was many times greater than all the archaeological investigations ever conducted in southern Iraq and must have yielded tablets, coins, cylinder seals, statues, terracottas, bronzes and other objects in the hundreds of thousands."
Read the adaptation and view satellite images in a video of the presentation delivered by Dr. Elizabeth Stone at the symposium "Looting the Cradle of Civilization: The Loss of History in Iraq," held at The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, April 12, 2008.
(Photo: Stony Brook University)
Sphere: Related Content
The report of the recent Iraq inspection which was the subject of the Arts Newspaper and Wall Street Journal articles has now appeared on the British Museum website. It makes instructive reading in the contexct of the sensationalist journalism, and resolves a couple of questions raised by the articles.
I wonder whether it will be noticed by those in the portable antiquity collecting milieu who are now rhetorically asking whether the looting was a fiction? They seem to be basing their judgements on superficial news items culled from the Internet. In the past few days, despite the appearance of the full report of the mission, the number of Internet articles proclaiming that the "looting of sites never happened" or that "archaeologists misled the public" over this has proliferated quite noticeably. Obviously this is a far more attractive picture of events for some elements of the public than the brutal truth, that the degree of damage has been unacceptably high. These elements are misleading themselves however if they are failing to use the information that is in the public domain in the form of academic publications where the statements about what has been happening are substantiated and documented.
Perhaps in order to get a more rounded view, they might look at a number of publications that have been appearing, such as:
Geoff Emberling, Katharyn Hanson (eds) 2008, Catastrophe! the Looting and Destruction of Iraq's Past (Oriental Institute Museum Publications) ISBN: 978-1-885923-56-1 [out of print and available online at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/oimp28.pdf ]
Lawrence Rothfield (2008) Antiquities Under Siege: Cultural Heritage Protection after the Iraq War, Barnes and Noble, ISBN-13: 9780759110991
Peter Stone & Joanne Farchakh Bajjaly (eds) 2008 'The Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Iraq' Boydell and Brewer, ISBN 978 1 84383 384
Elizabeth C. Stone, "Patterns of looting in southern Iraq", Antiquity, Vol. 82, No. 315, 2008, 125-38
then there's a useful series of articles collected on SAFE's 'resources' page
and others. Maybe it would be a useful task for us to compile a fuller academic bibliography (if one does not already exist somewhere) to counteract the growing "everything's just fine really, the academics got it wrong" propaganda.
Sphere: Related Content
Leif Isaksen blogs expressing concern that "the World Archaeological Congress’s voice with regard to archaeological ethics in conflict situations has been undermined by those whose task it is to support it." Isaksen adds more detail to the kerfuffle over what exactly was passed by whom at the WAC congress and whether this represents official WAC policy. WAC's website clarifies as well:
A resolution suggesting that no archaeologists or cultural heritage specialists assist the military in planning to protect the cultural heritage was passed by the Plenary session of the WAC-6 Congress for consideration by the World Archaeological Congress Assembly, Council and Executive but was not approved as a formal statement of the position of the organisation as a whole.
Sphere: Related Content
A new policy for the selling of archaeological materials on ebay.de (Germany) went into effect on July 1, 2008 (Press Release from eBay.de: "Neuer eBay-Grundsatz zum Handel mit archäologischen Funden," 1 July 2008). A link in the press release provides full details on the new rules ("Grundsatz zu archäologischen Funden").
The new policy defines "archaeological finds" as follows:
"An archaeological find is an object of historical, artistic or scientific importance, which laid for a time in the ground or under water."It continues in providing non-exclusive examples of certain objects covered by the new policy, which include:
"Ein archäologischer Fund ist ein Objekt von geschichtlicher, künstlerischer oder wissenschaftlicher Bedeutung, der vorübergehend im Boden oder unter Wasser ruhte."
Sphere: Related Content
On July 9 2008, a post entitled “Saving Antiquities for Everyone: Grassroots or Astro Turf?” appeared on the blog “Cultural Property Observer” which raised questions about SAFE’s membership, funding sources, position on the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild and coin collecting, as well as SAFECORNER’s support “for Iraqi Government control over Jewish holy books” and “SAFE members' kudos for China's treatment of Tibet's cultural heritage at the CPAC hearing on the Chinese request for import restrictions.”
We think that this is a good opportunity for SAFE, who runs SAFECORNER, to bring our readers’ attention to the information on the SAFE website, which also answer these questions raised by "Cultural Property Observer".
SAFE’s membership:
Please read “Who we are” and bios of some of our volunteer members who support SAFE's day-to-day activities here
Funding sources:
Please see here and here. Additional funding comes from fundraising activities listed here We also solicit private donations via the website.
To date, SAFE has not received government funds.
Position on the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild and coin trade:
Please read paragraph 3 of SAFE's Statement of Principles:
SAFE encourages legal and ethical behavior among collectors, dealers, and museums to stop the trade in illicit antiquities. SAFE recognizes the ability of individuals and institutions to lawfully acquire and properly retain or transfer title of antiquities where authorized by law. However, antiquities are more than just aesthetic objects of beauty; they serve as historical evidence of the past. Because principles of supply and demand influence illegal antiquities trafficking, purchasers of antiquities should recognize that high demand can entice others to illegally excavate archaeological sites, smuggle illicit antiquities, and sell stolen objects. Such unlawful and unethical behavior permanently destroys information about the past.
SAFE has made no statement about the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild.
SAFECORNER’s support “for Iraqi Government control over Jewish holy books”:
Please see paragraph 2 of SAFE's Statement of Principles and Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Iraq sections III.G.1, IX.F and X.D.
SAFE promotes respect for the laws and treaties that protect cultural heritage and property. SAFE favors accountability for those who violate United States laws and/or tolerate the violation of other countries' laws in pursuit of cultural artifacts. SAFE supports the enforcement of international and bilateral cultural property agreements.
“SAFE members' kudos for China's treatment of Tibet's cultural heritage at the CPAC hearing on the Chinese request for import restrictions”:
The word "Tibet" doesn't even appear in any of the 3 statements supplied by SAFE members to the CPAC committee.
_______
Finally, we would like to point out that while SAFECORNER invites members of the SAFE community and other experts and opinion leaders in the field of cultural heritage protection to post on the blog, it does not necessarily mean that the opinions of the authors represent those of SAFECORNER, or the organization SAFE. SAFECORNER provides an open forum for discussion where dialogs begin, ideas exchange, and concrete solutions emerge concerning looting and the illicit antiquities trade. Please also read Blogging on SAFECORNER.
For further information, please review the SAFE's Terms and Conditions of Use, specifically sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.
Thank you for visiting our blog and participating in our discussions.
SAFECORNER
Sphere: Related Content
The Hellenic Ministry of Culture announced today that Shelby White will be returning two antiquities from her collection to Greece later in July.
Further details.
Sphere: Related Content
The recent meeting of the World Archaeological Congress in Dublin, from what I hear, included a rather raucous debate about the proper relations between archaeologists and the military. Here's the resolution they passed, preceded by a press release. I have a more detailed preliminary response on my blogsite, but suffice it to say that I think the point of view expressed by the WAC is misguided and naive. Had this policy been followed in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, the loss of archaeological heritage would have been even worse than it has been.
PRESS RELEASE
Archaeologists urged not to become part of the war planning against Iran
More than a thousand archaeologists from all over the world gathered in Dublin at the end of June to attend the 6th World Archaeological Congress (WAC). WAC is the only archaeological organisation with global elected representation, and one which places particular emphasis on archaeological ethics. (www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org).
In the final plenary session on Friday 4 July 2008, the delegates passed a resolution which not only opposes any military attack on Iran, but also urges archaeologists not to offer any advice to the military on archaeological issues during the planning of such attack. In the recent past, archaeologists in the USA were approached by the military and were asked to provide expertise and advice on Iranian archaeological sites. The Congress felt that to provide such information at this stage is to offer “cultural credibility and respectability to the military action”. In 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq, some archaeologists both in the USA and the UK were asked to provide (or volunteered) information on sites “to be spared”. Their actions attracted considerably criticism from many of their colleagues.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
“The 6th World Archaeological Congress expresses its strong opposition to any
unilateral and unprovoked, covert or overt military action (including air strikes) against Iran by the US government, or by any other government. Such action will have catastrophic consequences for millions of people and will seriously endanger the cultural heritage of Iran and of the Middle East in general. Any differences with Iran (as with any other country) should be resolved through peaceful and diplomatic means.
The Congress also urges its members, all archaeologists and heritage professionals to resist any attempts by the military and governments to be co-opted in any planned military operation, for example by providing advice and expertise to the military on archaeological and cultural heritage matters. Such advice would provide cultural credibility and respectability to the military action. Archaeologists should continue emphasising instead the detrimental consequences of such actions for the people and the heritage of the area, for the past and the present alike. A universal refusal by archaeologists and others would send the message that such a plan is hugely unpopular amongst cultural professionals as well as he wider public”.
CONTACT: Dr Yannis Hamilakis, University of Southampton, co-ordinator, WAC “Archaeologist and War Task Force” (y.hamilakis@soton.ac.uk).
Dr Umberto Albarella, University of Sheffield, (u.albarella@sheffield.ac.uk)
Sphere: Related Content
I have critiqued the goals, motives, and tactics of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) several times (those unfamiliar with the ACCG are urged to consult a list of some relevant web-postings at the end of this discussion). For those who do not know, the ACCG is a 501 (c) 4 organization to which financial contributions are not normally tax deductible since up to 100% of its funds can be used for the purposes of political lobbying. According to its website, the goal of of the ACCG is to maintain a "free-market" in all coins. It has lobbied against legislative measures designed to protect archaeological and historical sites from destruction. A possible financial motive for its activities may be apparent in the fact that its founder and most of its officers are ancient coin dealers, and the majority of its financial contributors (especially the larger contributors) are ancient coin and antiquities dealers and auction houses.
In November of last year, the ACCG announced it was suing the U.S. Department of State under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for more transparency on the process under which it decided to impose import restrictions, at the request of Cyprus, on certain ancient coins of Cypriot type. Many who are familiar with the "blogstorm" last fall about these issues will recall that several vocal ACCG members and dealers were alleging various conspiracies between archaeologists and State Department officials( links here and here to relevant posts, some of which reference dealer accusations). A "benefit auction" for which the ACCG has been soliciting donations, which it will auction on August 17, 2008, has now sparked my interest.
...Read the rest of the post at Numismatics and Archaeology: "The 'ACCG Benefit Auction' and Intrinsic Interests."
Sphere: Related Content
In Stop the appeasement of art and antiquities thieves (Globe and Mail, July 5, 2008) Geoffrey Clarfield, former curator of ethnography at the National Museums of Kenya, writes "art theft seems to have become a form of proxy kidnapping."
Clarfield continues: "Our publicly funded museums and private auction houses have encouraged the illegal trade in antiquities by buying imported antiquities and muddling their provenance. Anyone who buys antiquities smuggled out of Iraq is indirectly financing the civil war there."
Clarfield concludes: "If we continue to appease thieves, smugglers and terrorists, we can be sure that more of our museums and galleries will be plundered and held for ransom. By doing nothing we will be giving a free hand to organized crime in our own and other countries."
What do YOU think?
Sphere: Related Content
Photo: Shiho Fukada for The New York Times
In the July 4 New York Times, art critic Holland Cotter offers his impressions of museums in China, which recently adopted a nationwide free-admission policy. The article, first in a series entitled Civilization on Display, discusses the different approaches to museum displays, and contrasts them to those in the West.
The article includes a multimedia presentation narrated by Cotter in which he said, “In the West we have an idea of the art object as a discreet thing that should be seen by itself, speaks for itself, and should be enjoyed for aesthetic reasons, whereas in China, frequently, the same kind of object is considered to be a cultural relic...and the stories are more important than the individual object itself.” Chinese museums, Cotter concludes, “set a different model for a museum, and it’s one that the west has a lot to learn from.”
Sphere: Related Content
The Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) has been active in seeking returns of looted antiquities ("Wrapping up smuggled goods", Al-Ahram, 3-9 July 2008). Some 3000 antiquities have been seized in the last six years. Locations include Heathrow Airport and Geneva - but these only account for some 1000 pieces. Where were the other 2000 seized? (See also the relief from Bonhams; two Middle Kingdom ducks at Christie's (New York) and with Rupert Wace.) Were these 3000 antiquities destined for the antiquities market? Had they been purchased? Who was handling them?
These figures suggest that looting in Egypt is far from over. This area will be looked after by a new department at the SCA, the National Committee to Return Smuggled Antiquities (NCRSA).
Sphere: Related Content
I have been searching for reactions to the situation in Iraq and came across this dated but timeless quote from Eleanor Robson (All Souls College, Oxford) about the tragedy of the Baghdad Museum (Frank Rich, "And Now: 'Operation Iraqi Looting'", New York Times April 27, 2003):You'd have to go back centuries, to the Mongol invasion of Baghdad in 1258, to find looting on this scale.
Is the same also true for the archaeological sites in Iraq?
Sphere: Related Content
On July 1, 2008 The Art Newspaper reported "Archaeological sites in south Iraq have not been looted, say experts"(See Larry Rothfield's responses here and here).
Video here shows images presented on April 12, 2008, at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute Symposium Looting the Cradle of Civilization: The Loss of History in Iraq by Dr. Abdulamir Hamdani, Director of Antiquities in Nasiriya Province in southern Iraq, in his first hand account of the situation there. (Courtesy: Abdulamir Hamdani)
To view in higher resolution, click here for Quicktime 7 and here for Windows Media Player
Sphere: Related Content
Just to start to set the record straight, a few more bits of information at my blog, http://larryrothfield.blogspot.com/
Sphere: Related Content
A story in The Art Newspaper by Anna Somers Cocks (July 1, 2008)Loan fees risk killing the goose that lays the golden eggs raises interesting questions about museum collections for rent. It reports on a paper issued by the Italian branch of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), reminding "everybody that the 1986 ethical code of ICOM states that museum collections are for the benefit of the public and should never be considered financial assets. The great lending museums and their boards should remember this, not least because they risk killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. After all, why should they be deserving of tax-free status, of donations from business and the rich, of being considered superior to ordinary commercial life if they themselves become so commercial as to rent our their collections? Have your fundraising parties, your glitzy tours for billionaires, your exquisite restaurants and your boutiques, but don’t forget what you are really there for, which is to spread knowledge and understanding through your art, an objective too noble to be sold off to the highest bidder. Loan fees are bad, as ICOM Italia has spelled out."
Sphere: Related Content
The Art Newspaper makes too much hay out of a new report by highly reputable archaeologists who visited 8 major sites in southern Iraq. (The article is at
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=8066.) The lede is in-your-face (or at least in mine):
"An international team of archaeologists which made an unpublicised visit to southern Iraq last month found no evidence of recent looting—contrary to long-expressed claims about sustained illegal digging at major sites."
Who has been making these now-contradicted claims? Well, among others, me, supposedly:
"We reported last month, in a review of a new scholarly book on Iraq’s cultural heritage, that Professor Lawrence Rothfield of the University of Chicago claims that sites are being “destroyed at the rate of roughly 10% a year”.
One problem: there is no contradiction here. Archaeologists have been claiming that sustained digging has taken place at sites both major and minor, but that is not the same thing as claiming that every site in the country has been looted, or even that every major site has been looted. Indeed, it has been known for several years now, from analyses of satellite imagery by Elizabeth Stone, that in general the sites in the south had not seen as much looting as of those she studied from the middle of the country, where the devastation has been enormous. Stone's analysis showed that the major sites in the south -- the only area this assessment team visited --had for the most part remained unlooted, at least through 2005, the latest date for which satellite photos were available to her.
The archaeological assessment team, which included Stone, visited just eight major sites, of the 10,000 registered sites in the country. Is it possible that sustained looting is occurring or has already occurred at many of the 9,992 other sites? The answer is certainly yes for the years 2003-2006; Stone's data shows that indisputably. For what has been happening since, the US military could easily clear up the question of how much looting has taken place where and when, if it would provide time-series photos of known sites. Don't hold your breath on that happening, though.
It was already clear from Stone's analysis that the 8 sites visited were unusual in not having experienced the kind of severe looting that Stone found elsewhere in the country. The real question is: why were these sites spared?
Donny George was kind enough to help me with this question. His response: The team "visited some specific and less troubled sites from the security point of view, and these sites happen to be protected for one reason or another:
1. Ur: this site was protected before 2003 being surrounded by the Iraqi air base, then after 2003 protected by the American air base, together with the good protection of the Iraqi guards and FPS patrols.
2. Larsa: this site is in a remote area, almost covered by sand dunes, which made it very difficult for the looters to approach, most of the times.
3. Uruk: This site had always been very good protected by its guards and their tribes, there have been some attempts of looting, but they were strongly stopped by the guards and the local authorities.
4. Lagash, There had been some attempts of looting to this site, but not that much all the time, yes it is very well known in the world of archaeology, but it never had extensive looting like the others.
5. Eridu, This site had been surrounded by water for some time before 2003, and later dried, so it was not so vulnerable by the looters, although it is very well known in the world of archaeology, but also known of having extensive archaeological excavations by the Iraqi antiquities service, which maybe left nothing for the looters, in their opinion, and the excavations there are completely covered, except for some bricks on the surface of one mound only.
5. Tell Lahm: This site has been looted to some extent, and has been disturbed by the diggings of the Iraqi army in 1991, first Gulf war, but since this site is in the closest point between the high way between Basra and Baghdad, and the local road between Basra and Nasiriyah, and there's always been been a check point there, because of that situation, and the American forces use both ways extensively, I think the looters abandoned the site from early times.
6. Ubaid: This site had had some looting just after the 1991 war, and maybe some more just after 2003, but since being very close to the city of Ur, made it on the way of the Iraqi FPS patrols and the American forces from the beginning, so I believe it was very hard for the looters to continue in these circumstances.
7. Oueili: very well known in the world of archaeology by the French excavations and publications, but it is a prehistoric site, it produces nothing of the materials that the looters want, maybe they have checked it and abandon it, because of that.
George concludes: "Again with all my respect to the courageous action these leading archaeologists had done, but this is my personal point of view, but I want to believe that there will be some more trips for other sites in the near future."
Why does it matter whether the story is badly slanted or not?
Two reasons: First, because its slantedness has political implications. The story has been pounced upon by the rightwing blogosphere -- newrepublic.com posted it instantaneously -- since it leaves readers with the impression that, as one rightwing commenter on the story has already put it, the claim of massive looting of sites "was just another story fabricated by the Boston Globe and New York Times."
Second, and far more important, because in addition to enabling deniers to claim that nothing has happened or is happening that needs our attention, the reporter misses the real story, which is about what we can learn from the happy fate of these 8 sites. Nearby bases, checkpoints on major roads, increased FPS patrols, help from locals, as well as training equipment and guard towers bequeathed by the carabinieri: all these make a real difference.
That's the real surprise, one the story misses, but one that policymakers -- especially those working on the new Status of Forces agreement with the Iraq government -- could learn from if they wanted to protect more of what remains on sites in other less fortunate areas of the country.
Sphere: Related Content
Recently, I have been taking note of the use of the term “good faith” and particularly how the term is used by opponents of import restrictions on antiquities that do not have proper documentation, repatriations of looted material, and advocates of a “free-market” in ancient objects.
Yesterday, David Gill reported that a relief fragment from an Egyptian tomb was repatriated to Egypt after it had been withdrawn from a sale at Bonhams (London) earlier this year, when someone from the Metropolitan Museum of Art recognized it from an Egyptian tomb, where it was once in situ (“Tomb of Mutirdis (TT410): Update,” Looting Matters, 30 June 2008). A spokesperson for Bonhams would not identify the individual or dealership from whom they acquired the object, but stated that it appeared to have been acquired in "good faith."
Also on David Gill's weblog, and elsewhere, there has been discussion of the Association of Art Museum Director's (AAMD) new guidelines for the acquisition of antiquities ("AAMD and Antiquities: a Revised Position," Looting Matters, 5 June 2008). In light of this, he has recently discussed the use of a 1970 vs. 1983 date in response to Lee Rosenbaum, who suggested the 1983 cutoff date for repatriations (D.W.J. Gill, "Towards a Ceasefire in the 'Antiquities Wars': a Response to Lee Rosenbaum," Looting Matters, 26 June 2008; id., "The 'Antiquities Wars': Further Thoughts," Looting Matters, 27 June 2008; L. Rosenbaum, "Towards a Ceasefire in the Antiquities Wars: The Next Step (Part I)," CultureGrrl, 25 June 2008; id., "Towards a Ceasefire in the Antiquities Wars: The Next Step (Part II)," CultureGrrl, 27 June 2008). Peter Tompa, current president of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) and an attorney, has also weighed in on the debate ("Memo to AAMD Members: Pick 1970 or 1983 as a Trigger for your Cultural Property Returns," Cultural Property Observer, 26 June 2008). While Gill and Rosenbaum prefer different dates based on various legal and ethical precedents, 1970 (as per the 1970 UNESCO Convention) and 1983 (as per US legislation subscribing to the UNESCO Convention via the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA)), respectively, Tompa suggests that repatriations be based on the date that a foreign nation's request for import restrictions on cultural property is recognized by the U.S. Department of State be used as the guideline. He also makes the statement early on that "Repatriation decisions should never be taken lightly, particularly when lack of provenance information does not necessarily mean lack of good faith."
Last week, it was brought to the attention of the Iraq Crisis Discussion List that some rare Iraqi Jewish books were smuggled out of Iraq and traded in Israel ("Rare Iraqi Jewish Books 'Surface in Israel,'" Yahoo! News, 27 June 2008). There has been a protracted discussion on the Iraq Crisis Discussion List, to which many have contributed, including Jeff Spurr, Dorothy King, Paul Barford, Michael Balter, John Robertson, Patty Gerstenblith, Donny George, Peter Tompa, and others (visit the June and July archives to view individual contributions to the thread). Mr. Tompa and Mr. Barford have both blogged about the discussion and pertinent issues (P. Tompa, "Jewish Books Smuggled from Iraq to Israel," Cultural Property Observer, 28 June 2008; P. Barford, "'Stuff Happens': US 'Torah Rescue' from Iraq?" Cultural Heritage in Danger (SAFECorner), 30 June 2008). In regard to a related issue on these Iraqi Jewish books, Tompa again brings up "good faith": "In any event, the Torah described in the article would not easily fit into either category so I think we must assume (unless proven otherwise) that all concerned have acted in good faith."
It was also reported this month that a Norwegian soldier who served in Afghanistan attempted to donate a hoard of coins and an ancient bottle he acquired there to a museum in Oslo and that Afghanistan is now seeking the return of the illicitly exported - and probably looted - material (N. Berglund, "Afghanistan Seeks Return of 'Stolen Treasures,'" Aftenposten: News from Norway, 18 June 2008). Dorothy King provided a short discussion of it on her blog ("A Little Afghan Looting...Updated," PhDiva, 23 June 2008). In the comments section of this post, Peter Tompa commented: "This soldier should be given the benefit of the doubt. It is likely he bought these artifacts in good faith from desperately poor farmers who found the material, and I will assume this to be the case unless and until someone proves otherwise. This only became a story when the archaeological blogs picked it up. I suspect they helped egg on the Afghan Museum authorities to demand the repatriation of this material and an investigation. Before the Communists and Taliban took over, the government tolerated sales of minor artifacts such as this. A change of sensibilities in the elites that run the archaeological establishment, will not change the facts on the ground. Desperately poor farmers will sell whatever they find to whomever will buy it. Better to put in some system akin to Treasure Trove, that records everything, rather than assume Afghanistan has the funds and archaeologists necessary to conserve every piece of ancient history in its museums."
A comment by Sebastian Heath in response to Tompa on the same entry is worth reading as well as his "Say What?" Mediterranean Ceramics, 23 June 2008.
The purpose of this post is not to "slam" Mr. Tompa. I have respect for him and he uses more discretion and reason than many of the dealers with whom I have tried to have discussions in the past (to be clear, Tompa is not a dealer, but rather a collector). Instead, I am trying to highlight a fundamental difference in perception and argumentation that people on different sides of the "antiquities debate" have. Tompa, for example, seems to present the notion that "good faith" and "the benefit of the doubt" are enough for the trading of antiquities. On the other hand, David Gill, among others, have argued the need for stronger "due diligence" processes in the acquisition of antiquities by dealers, collectors, and museums.
In the early spring of 1999, a 60 kilogram parcel of ancient coins, which was only part of a larger shipment, estimated to be in the neighborhood of a ton (literally), was intercepted at Frankfurt Airport (R. Dietrich, "Cultural Property on the Move - Legally, Illegally," International Journal of Cultural Property 11.2 (2002): 294-304). The coins were falsely declared and were spirited out of Bulgaria and destined for sale in the United States. The Bulgarian national was and still is an active coin dealer and wholesaler to other dealers in the United States. Online correspondence on ancient coin discussion lists indicate this dealer was selling coins en masse to other dealers and collectors at a major North American coin show just a few months after customs officials released the parcel under peculiar circumstances (see the article for fuller discussion of the release from customs). Many collectors were excited by these coins and I am certain they purchased them in "good faith," but does this excuse the way in which they made it to the marketplace? Although they may have been buying in "good faith," were the dealers and collectors that purchased from this importer practicing adequate "due diligence"? Were they asking about how he acquired them, and if so, simply taking his word for whatever answer he might have supplied?
A couple of years ago, Classical Numismatic Group (CNG) acquired a very rare coin of Brutus commemorating Caesar's assassination and paid approximately $23,000 for the coin (a wholesale price), which it in turn would have tried to sale for around $30,000 (D. Alberge, "Swoop by Customs Returns Brutus to Scene of the Crime," Times Online, 15 June 2006; L. Worden, "Ancient Coin Buyers, Beware," COINage Magazine 42.11 (Nov. 2006)). The Greek government claimed the coin was smuggled out of Greece and the coin was returned. Mr. McFadden of CNG acted in "good faith" in buying the coin and returned it to the Greek embassy when asked to do so. But how extensive was the "due diligence" process? The Times Online article stated: "Mr McFadden, whose company is regarded as one of the world’s leading specialists in Greek and Roman coins, told The Times: 'He did some work for Nino [Scavona] in the 1980s ... One doesn’t refuse to deal with someone because he has a slightly shady background.
Here is an excerpt from the COINage Magazine article:
'One looks at the deal on the table. We’re business people. If there’s any indication something’s not legitimate, we don’t deal in it.'" "'After the cash was seized,' McFadden said, 'his daughter kept phoning up, asking when her father could get his money back.' That provided a clue that the man was indeed the seller. 'That's something that happened after the fact,' McFadden said. 'Not only did I not know about it, but I couldn't have known about it.' After all, it was the coin dealer who vouched for his ability to sell the coin. 'If someone brings a coin in to you and says they own it and they can sell it to you and they guarantee the authenticity — obviously I'm aware of any recent reports of theft, so if the coin had been reported stolen, I would have known about it — then there's nothing more one can do,' McFadden said. Longtime coin dealer Wayne Sayles, executive director of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, agreed. 'There is no tradition in the world market for the background-checking of sellers, nor is there any real reason for it,' Sayles said. 'There are pertinent and applicable laws in most countries that deal with import, theft, etc., and dealers do, in my experience, try diligently to follow those laws as they apply at the point of sale.' Sayles lamented that 'we may have lost an opportunity to contest a claim that seems to be arguable on several grounds.'
It is clear that existing due diligence processes in the antiquities trade are not as rigorously applied as one might hope and much of the existing processes seem to rely very much on the mere word of profiteers and suppliers. "Good faith" purchases and dealings are not enough. Dealers and collectors would add dignity to their activities if they were to follow the example of the AAMD and adopt more stringent due diligence processes and acquisition guidelines. This would decrease the demand for recently looted material by diminishing the market for it and profitability of it.
(Image of an Egyptian relief withdrawn from a Bonhams sale and now repatriated to Egypt. Source: D.W.J. Gill, “Tomb of Mutirdis (TT410): Update,” Looting Matters, 30 June 2008)
This post has been cross-posted from Numismatics and Archaeology: "Good Faith, Due Diligence, and Market Activities."
Sphere: Related Content
Posts
All Comments
