ICOM's "Red List of Cambodian Antiquities At Risk" - A New Weapon in the Fight?

Recently, the I.C.O.M. (International Council of Museums) brought together archaeologists from academic, outreach, and museum contexts (specifically, the E.F.E.O. (Ecole Francaise D'Extreme Orient), Heritage Watch, and the National Museum of Cambodia) to create a new edition to the "Red List" series. They seek to provide up-to-date information to all relevant legal and investigatory authorities slated with the task of curtailing the antiquities trade from those countries most heavily targeted; Cambodia increasingly amongst them. Although most countries with antiquities under threat are beginning to step up their legal and investigatory efforts to stem export from their boarders, in countries with relatively porous boarders, coupled with largely undocumented and under-investigated archaeological records, efforts at in-country apprehension of offenders, and the repatriation of loot, will be stymied without further efforts at education. While most such educational outreach efforts rightly (in my opinion) target the supply and demand 'ends' of the chain, and increasingly attempt to utilize cutting-edge approaches (see Huffer 2009), the Red List has the potential to target that 'gap' in the middle: the points at which, and places from which, illicit antiquities move.

The Cambodian "Red List," like those of the other locations for which they have been compiled (Africa, Latin America, and the specific countries of Iraq, Afghanistan, Peru and Cambodia), was planned to serve as a reference manual so that Customs agents, trial lawyers, and concerned curators, dealers, and collectors may better be able to recognize authentic artifacts in amongst forgeries (although forgeries are much less of an issue for the Cambodian and Southeast Asian prehistoric antiquities trade than elsewhere). Covering arbitrarily defined prehistoric, pre-Angkorian, Angkorian and post-Angkorian time periods, and with artifacts divided into the categories of 'stone' (including semi-precious stone), 'metal' (bronze, iron, copper, gold and silver), 'ceramics and glass' (classified together for some reason), and a small group of artifacts comprised of 'organic materials,' comprising Buddhist and French colonial-period wooden objects and texts. The laundry-list of artifacts covered is indeed thorough, and I.C.O.M. and their consultants for each List make sure that all artifacts used as examples derive from secure excavated contexts, so as to avoid the supposed moral dilemma of using evidence of looting, in the form of photographs of recovered artifacts, to help curtail additional looting. I personally do not see the issue, as the use of images of looted objects and sites MUST (in my opinion) be a part of public outreach efforts, and can affect attitudes on both the supply and demand sides, especially when utilized within larger contexts.

Although in principle I can see the benefit that such a resource, made available to agents in every relevant exit point of a given source country, as well as to Interpol itself, could have in increasing the number of arrests and confiscations of major shipments of larger objects like statues and frescoes (those scant few that leave a source country through its air or shipping ports). The highly clandestine nature of the trade in small, prehistoric artifacts from Cambodia (jewelry, glass beads, etc.) however, makes it unlikely that use of the "Red List" by itself will make the confiscation of these items, even in bulk, more frequent at Cambodia's boarder crossings, although of course identification would become easier. Furthermore, as the authors themselves note, it (the List) is not exhaustive. This is especially relevant as, due to the still-poorly-known nature of Cambodia's ancient past, new artifact types turning up in unique contexts from new excavations is to be expected, let alone from much more frequent looted contexts.

As a final note, I question the inclusion of dealers, collectors, and auction houses in the group of recipients of the Red List itself. Of course, for those curators and employees of reputable museums and auction houses (or those wishing to bolster their reputations by cracking down on what portion of the trade passes through their doors), then yes, having such expert-produced guidebooks is crucial. However, when private collectors, dealers and auction houses are included full-stop, with no prior enquiry as to whether or not these individuals or institutions truly care about doing honest, legal trade, seems tantamount to handing them a "shopping list;" a way for such collectors or dealers to guarantee that what they acquire is authentic, and even to fabricate a context to possibly fool authorities and increase profits in on-line auctions. On the other hand, the Red Lists do provide a complete listing of all local and international laws governing Cultural Heritage issues from that country; perhaps enough to give purchasers pause to consider if it's worth the risk. The use of the Latin America Red List, in the larger context of fighting the Colombian antiquities trade, perhaps provides a good example of what could happen when the List is used in the context of larger outreach projects. The optimistic words of H.E. Chuch Phoern, Cambodia's Secretary of State, Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts (and an archaeologist himself), hopefully portent a productive future for the Cambodian Red List, but in my opinion, the existence of the Red List must not reduce activities on all fronts scientific, curatorial, legal, and educational. Constant vigilance!

Sphere: Related Content