How the Illegal Trade of Afghan Antiquities is Funding Terrorism

Spotlight, a weekly presentation of investigative reports from around the world for Link Tv, reported recently on the European art trade. The selling of stolen or smuggled art in Europe has been a problem for as long as the trade has existed. However, the looting of archaeological sites in Afghanistan has now become a major concern. Spotlight reports that the exploitation of Afghanistan's rich cultural heritage is helping to finance terrorism and the Taliban.

The report begins in The Royal Museum of Art & History in Brussels where crates of illicit antiquities are being kept - they had been impounded by customs. Items from looted sites in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including examples of Nal ceramic art and Buddhist art from the Indus plain, had found their way to Belgium. Artifacts from the 3rd millennium BC, the Islamite period and the Buddhist period, valuing hundreds of thousands of Euro, had all been confiscated. These pieces were allegedly headed for the large antiquities market in Brussels. Belgium is reported to be a centre for illicit antiquities due to its strategic location in Europe, easy access to wealthy dealers and most significantly pieces can be sold without documentation. According to Spotlight, artifacts from freshly looted sites with sand still visible on them can be seen for sale in a city where the EU's headquarters is based.

Spotlight's reporters made good use of hidden cameras during their research and one art dealer explains on camera how he knows that certain items have been looted, adding that "it is obvious if a piece comes from Afghanistan it is stolen". Ancient artifacts quickly become little more than merchandise once they have been looted. Art dealers usually claim that items for sale are legal and have been bought from an old private collection. Another dealer emphasizes the disregard shown for what these artifacts could tell us. He says he does not care where an item comes from and he describes one example as originating in Northern Pakistan which in reality he admits came from the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

Another individual admits his source to the reporter, "I have a friend in Afghanistan" he says, " I trained him, he is an Afghan". When asked about how they clear customs, he tells us that if it fits in a suitcase no one will stop you. He also tells us that the customs officials in Afghanistan can be bribed if you get caught. The next dealer secretly interviewed for camera tells us he used to go to Afghanistan himself but now his contacts come to him making it much easier- he no longer has to take the risk of being kidnapped. Things are not so easy for a French archaeology team working in the war torn country; the team has to carry weapons and the threat of land mines is a very real danger. Indeed, it is reported that many archaeological sites in Afghanistan look like they have been shelled due to the number of holes dug in the landscape by looters.

Most of the looters are local villagers who give varying reasons for being involved. Some say it is better than doing nothing at home while others tell us they have to put food on the table. Sometimes heavy rain has exposed pottery that has been buried in the soil and it is easily lifted out. One local villager shows the camera a 3,000 year old artifact he had found.

The wider problem of illicit antiquities dealers generally is underlined by one particular individual who would not disclose his sources. He argued, unconvincingly, that "there will come a time when Afghanistan is again rich and powerful and it will buy back its heritage". This statement completely misses the point that important archaeological context is destroyed when a site is looted therefore limiting what a piece can tell us about the past. Unfortunately, stolen art does not appear to be a priority for the police or the legal system in Belgium or Holland. Spotlight speculates that powerful public figures and aristocracy are involved in the illegal art trade and so authorities cannot dig too deep.

The FBI and Interpol have linked the antiquities trade to terrorist organizations; 5 billion dollars of stolen antiquities is traded each year with a large proportion of this allegedly funding terrorists. For example, Mohamed Atta, who flew an aeroplane into the Twin Towers in New York in 2001, was known to have financed, or intended to finance, his operations by trading stolen Afghan art in Germany. It was revealed in 2005 by Der Spiegel (a German magazine) that Atta had visited an art professor in Germany in the early part of 2001, prior to the 9/11 attacks. He had reportedly brought with him numerous pieces of stolen art and wanted to know where he could sell it; his reason for wanting to sell the collection was that he intended to buy an aeroplane.

The Taliban are reportedly funded by the sale of heroin and illicit antiquities and this is what gives them the resources to continue a war. One local villager describes how the Taliban would come and dig tunnels into tombs. The locals did not know what they had found but the Taliban had stayed digging for over a month. They then went house to house confiscating what the villagers had previously found. Sites such as these were looted over and over again by locals once the Taliban had left (see above photograph; taken from Spotlight).

Local Afghan dealers photograph their merchandise and send them to potential buyers to generate interest. Pilots and government officials are allegedly bribed and illicit antiquities are smuggled together with heroin. Customs officials in Brussels do not have the expertise to recognize looted items and have to call embassy officials if they find something suspicious; airport security can not be expected to recognize all world art. One dealer tells the report that shipping an illegal artifact can cost 500-800 Euro in bribes but this is all included in the selling price. The UNESCO treaty of 1970 was meant to make it more difficult to sell looted pieces but it is proving very hard to establish that a phantom dealer who died 30 years ago and whose collection is now for sale did not actually ever exist. It is reportedly still business as usual in many countries that ratified the treaty long ago.

Share |

Sphere: Related Content

Support a friend of SAFE

On Wednesday, February 24 at 6:30 p.m., Donny George Youkhanna will be giving a special presentation at the American Museum of Natural History.
He will be discussing conditions and recovery efforts in Iraq.
If you are in New York City, please attend to support our friend.
The cost of the event is $15 ($13.50 for museum members, students, and seniors).

Share |

Sphere: Related Content

2010 CHAPS Conference

On April 10th, the program in Cultural Heritage and Preservation Studies (CHAPS) at Rutgers University will be holding an all-day conference, Cultural Heritage Now: Prospects, Directions, Futures | A Public Conversation. The conference will focus on the current state of cultural heritage studies and practice, bringing together academics, museums, funding-agencies and non-profit organizations for discussions about the future of this topic. Their keynote speaker is The Honorable James A. Leach, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and their list of preliminary speakers is as follows:

-Joshua Bell, Curator of Globalization, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution
-Joan Breton Connelly, Professor, Department of Classics, New York University
-Jon Fein, Independent Filmmaker and Sculptor, educator
-Douglas Greenberg, Executive Dean, School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University
-Richard Leventhal, Director, Penn Cultural Heritage Center
-Phillip E. Lewis, Vice President, Mellon Foundation
-Mary Sue Sweeny Price, Director, Newark Museum
-Suzan Shown Harjo, Director, Morningstar Institute
-Enid Schildkrout, Chief Curator, Museum for African Art
-Mary Ellen Snyder, National Park Service
-John Stubbs, Vice President, World Monuments Fund
-Jack Tchen, Director,Asian/Pacific/American Institute Founder, Museum of Chinese in America


CHAPS offers both a Certificate in Historic Preservation and a Masters degree in Cultural Heritage Preservation. This summer, they are offering a 5-week, 6-credit program in Athens called, "Cultural Heritage Preservation in Greece." It is open to undergraduate and graduate students, and they are accepting applications until April 1st.

Share |

Sphere: Related Content

More False Claims about Lobbying on Antiquities Issues

David Gill has recently addressed claims made by Peter Tompa that appear to have little basis in fact. Tompa is a lobbyist who represents commercial trade interests. He has alleged that the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI) "was involved in behind-the-scenes lobbying on behalf of the Cypriot Department of Antiquities, the Cypriot government body that issues excavation permits that allow CAARI affiliated archaeologists to excavate on the Island." The assertions are not substantiated further.

Ellen Herscher, the vice president of CAARI and an independent scholar, responded to Tompa's claims after they were posted to the Museum Security Network. She stated:

CAARI's Director and several trustees publicly submitted statements in support of the agreement. This position is in accordance with CAARI's Code of Ethics, which states that the organization "is dedicated to the protection and preservation of archaeological sites in Cyprus and the information they contain." There was no "behind-the-scenes lobbying" involved.

Secondly, "CAARI-affiliation" has nothing to do with the granting of excavation permits in Cyprus. Permits are the sole responsibility of the Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus.

It is unfortunate that the ACCG continues to publish these erroneous statements, despite the fact that CAARI has responded and refuted them in the past.

Gill asks the question:

Are "false claims" being deliberately planted by some of the North American coin-collecting community as part of the background to the test case over the coins seized in Baltimore? (For some more discussion of the "test case", see Gill's "The Baltimore Coin Test Case").

The question is a provocative one, especially in the context of other false claims recently made by one group Tompa is involved with, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG).

On November 13, 2009 The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) convened for an interim review of the bilateral agreement with Italy and asked for public comment to be restricted to Article II. Among other things under Article II, which covers Italy's obligations, Italy would allow long-term loans to American institutions, access to scholars, and prosecute antiquities traffickers within its own borders. Evidently, the CPAC asked that public comment be confined to Article II due to the concerns of many members of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) who felt that Italy was favoring institutions that had returned objects to Italy and that more longer term loans ought to be made. Indeed, there were several AAMD members at the interim review who gave presentations to the CPAC (their written comments have been posted online).

Immediately after the interim review, Tompa insinuated that archaeologists departed from Article II and raised the specter of coins and their potential inclusion in the upcoming renewal with Italy (see Tompa's "Interim Review of the Italian MOU"). He later claimed, innacurately, that Stefano De Caro, who spoke on behalf of Italy's Culture Ministry, argued that all coins made within the borders of what is now modern Italy should belong to Italy (see Tompa's "Is the Italian Cultural Bureaucracy the Best Steward for Coins?"). However, after being challenged, he conceded that he may have misunderstood.

The ACCG's founder, who was not even present at the interim review, then authored a press release alleging that archaeologists opportunistically raised the issue of coins; he also portrayed the AIA representative's comments as radical (see Sayles' "Archaeologists Plead for Import Restrictions on Common Coins"; for a more balanced view, see the AIA representative's reflections on the interim review). While Sayles pretended as if there is not near universal agreement among the archaeological community that looting and indiscriminate sourcing for the antiquities trade is detrimental to archaeology, he failed to note that many collectors have themselves voiced concerns that the status quo, which the ACCG seeks to protect, requires some internal reforms in the trade. Some have even gone so far as to observe that the ACCG is oriented more towards the concerns of commercial dealers rather than to collectors or the interests of preservation.

Wetterstrom, president-elect of the ACCG and its representative at the interim review, then authored an editorial in the Celator (a collector magazine that he operates) claiming that archaeologists at the meeting received special treatment and were not limited in the length of their presentations. He also writes that he was cut off early while reading his written comments that the CPAC already had in front of them (Tompa has reproduced Wetterstrom's text in his "Another Perspective on CPAC and the Interim Review of the Italian MOU").

Sayles then solicited another online press release, prompted by Wetterstrom's editorial ("Collectors Claim Bias Epitomizes State Department Committee Management"). Here, Sayles falsely reports that "Other speakers, who advocate import restrictions on coins, were reportedly allowed to exceed the published time limit with comments ranging up to 30 minutes."

In spite of the repetition of the claims by ACCG leadership, they have no basis in fact.

1) Archaeologists (note the ACCG's use of the plural) were not afforded any special treatment. All speakers were allowed only five minutes and were told to finish if they reached their time limit. Wetterstrom, like all other presenters, received a full five minutes and was cut off only after exhausting his time while reading his letter verbatim. All other speakers made "off-the-cuff" presentations. The only individual who made a longer presentation was Stefano De Caro who had traveled from Rome for the meeting, and who spoke approximately 20 minutes. Although it is implied he was improperly given excess time, the ACCG fails to note that foreign dignitaries are customarily not limited in the length of their presentation. This is proper since they represent the countries who have petitioned for an agreement with the U.S. government. As regular attendees of CPAC meetings, the ACCG is well aware of this fact.

2) Archaeologists did not raise the specter of coins. The order of presentation clearly demonstrates this since Tompa and Wetterstrom spoke before any archaeologist. Both individuals urged the committee not to consider coins any future renewal of the agreement and both made reference to the "test case." Archaeologists and numismatists who addressed the issue of coins during their presentations were simply responding to arguments made by Tompa and Wetterstrom that coins were not worth protecting because they are "common" or "cheap" on the market. But if one requires further proof, compare the written comments of Kerry Wetterstrom and Wayne Sayles, submitted to the CPAC in advance of the interim review, with the letter submitted by Sebastian Heath, the AIA representative. It is clear from the letters that, contrary to the ACCG's portrayal of events, the ACCG were focused on arguing that coins not be considered in the future. On the other hand, the AIA representative made no suggestion that coins be included in a renewal and instead had prepared to focus on Article II of the MOU as requested. It was only in oral comments that archaeologists and numismatists were forced to respond to issues beyond Article II that were raised by representatives of commercial interests.

Gill's question about whether or not false claims are being deliberately fabricated is penetrating, especially in the context of the misrepresentation of events at CPAC's interim review. Is it indeed hoped that the spin put on these events will construct a reality that is more conducive to their litigious activities? In this regard, it is worth noting that one of the points in the ACCG's 37 page complaint about the seizure, which they staged, states that archaeologists argued that the agreement with Italy be extended to coins, while failing to note that they brought up the question of coins in the first place (pdf here, see point 80).

Share |

Sphere: Related Content

Old collections: to what extent is it a convenient myth?

Dealers in unprovenanced archaeological material frequently evoke the argument that a lot of the material on the market today comes from the dismantling of old collections; collecting of archaeological artefacts has been going on, they say, since the Renaissance. In debate they can even show examples of such long-curated finds. Dealers assure buyers that this means that there are a good many legitimate artefacts on the market (see for example the websites of UK dealer Guy Rothewell, and that of Hicham Aboutaam). The pro-collecting lobby then argue that the concerns of the preservation lobby over the number of unprovenanced artefacts on the market today are exaggerated, holding that many items being collected today are from dismembered old collections. They insist that “unprovenanced does not necessarily mean looted”. While that is of course true, it is clear that the buying and selling of unprovenanced archaeological artefacts with neither dealer or buyer asking where those items ultimately came from is one of the factors which shields the trade in illicitly obtained artefacts from scrutiny.

Preservationists point out that the market in antiquities has been undergoing massive expansion in recent decades. In addition, people are collecting the types of minor antiquities that were not collected in any quantity in the past and so are not available from old collections or abandoned dealers’ stock. It is clear that increased demand for artefacts has forced traders to make up shortfall by the addition of new freshly dug up material (often illegally exported) to their stocks. The degree to which this is taking place is the subject of controversy. With facts and figures short on the ground, neither side can demonstrate grounds for either caution or optimism.

Recently however figures have been published which seem to resolve this issue quite decisively in the case of one commonly collected class of ancient dug-up artefacts, coins. In November last year, the Santa Fe-based Cultural Policy Research Institute published the results of its research, "Project on Unprovenanced Ancient Objects in Private US Hands". The figures presented there have “been developed with help from some of the most knowledgeable sources in the area”. Apart from the main topic of its deliberations, the report contains an estimate of the number of “unprovenanced Greek and Roman coins in private hands’, which however, since they are “not routinely of interest to AAMD Member institutions” are not discussed. Nevertheless an estimate is given of the likely number of such items currently in private hands to show what a resource for historical research they could comprise. The CPRI gives the total as “not less than 700,000 (200,000-300,000 Greek, 500,000-600,000 Roman)”. So nearly three quarters of a million coins which have all come from somewhere, obviously quite a lucrative market with some of those coins going for four or five figure sums.

The qualification “not less” however is an important one. This figure can now be compared with the number of fresh coins from abroad known to be being exported into the US market. In a study of the US coin market, Elkins mentions one documented case from Frankfurt airport in 1999 where one dealer in a matter of a few weeks illegally exported from Bulgaria to the USA a ton of ancient metal detected coins. Coins are imported by numerous US wholesalers and dealers from many countries and through many airports, but Elkins estimated that the Frankfurt shipments alone had contained 350 000 coins. To put that into perspective, that is fifty percent of the number of coins which the CPRI report are in private hands a decade later.

If the CPRI figures are an accurate indicator of the size of the private artefact holdings in the US, it is clear that in this case at least, the current pool of artefacts which has been on the market is to a very high degree composed of material which has indeed been freshly dug out of the archaeological record in foreign countries and illegally exported. They are by any definition illicit artefacts.

Vignette: a meeting of the Society of Dilettantes, after Sir Joshua Reynolds

Share |

Sphere: Related Content

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!

Share |

Sphere: Related Content

Field Report: Vietnam - Another Source Country?

As followers of the antiquities trade in general will be well aware, the illicit looting, smuggling, and display of artifacts from prehistoric and historic sites truly remain a global problem. Yet, the on-the-ground situation in certain regions, such as Mainland Southeast Asia, remains under-reported. Although UNESCO conventions, better monitoring and conservation, and increased calls for repatriation by Southeast Asian countries such as Cambodia has curtailed the trade in historic period frescoes and statuary from the regions' numerous early states and empires (from Funan, to Dvaravati, to Champa and Angkorian Khmer), the trade in prehistoric artifacts continues unabated. Since at least the 1980s, the looting of innumerable archaeological sites throughout the region, primarily in Cambodia and Thailand, has continued to mar the landscape and enrich the profits of middle-men at the expense of local interests. Furthermore, the mid-later prehistoric (c. 3,500-1,500BP) sites most commonly targeted belong to a very poorly known time period, during which profound changes in daily life, contact with the outside world, and the rituals of death were occurring. A more accurate understanding of these developments is crucial to explaining the origins of the states mentioned above, but every site looted before archaeologists can reach it, or salvaged after the fact, is another piece of the puzzle lost.

For my initial contribution to this blog, as an early-career archaeologist and physical anthropologist with connections to ongoing excavation and outreach projects in Vietnam and Cambodia, I would like to share my observations and opinions about the sale of authentic antiquities in Vietnam, as observed and documented over several trips, the most recent of which ended only one week ago. On the surface, it might appear that the looting problem there pales in significance to the more organized situation in Cambodia, Thailand, or other world regions. However, it appears that this situation is changing. To explain, let me share some brief observations from my most recent research trip (November 2009-January 2010).

Through excavations, classwork and my own reading and research, I have begun to familiarize myself with the diversity of artifacts one might encounter in archaeological sites of various locations and time periods throughout Vietnam, and the contexts they likely derived from, if encountered on the open market. During my latest trip, I stayed in an area of Hanoi (West Lake District) in which many "souvenir" or "antiquities" shops have opened in recent years, primarily along the main street connecting this district to the center of the city, or "Old Quarter" (see above left). Although national heritage law stipulates on paper that any authentic object older than 100 years can not be openly sold, the enforceability of this mandate is very difficult.

It is important to note that most objects sold in antiquities shops in Vietnam's cities are either Vietnam (American) War relics (real and fake), antiques from family collections indeed made in the 20th century, or replicas of historic-period Chinese ceramics, and even some private collectors and shop owners seek to work with officials to create a national registry where vendors can register family collections as authentic pieced with provenance in order to legally sell them. However, not all urban dealers are in favor of this plan, as the State has supreme confiscation rights, even though international treaties apply to illegal exports from Vietnam, and individual "possession rights" for "heirlooms," "national treasures," etc. are recognized. Of course, the vague definition of what might constitute a "national treasure" ensures that many important historic period objects are still sold without provenance, salvaged from shipwrecks, or even sometimes looted from sites or monasteries...to say nothing of prehistoric artifacts. The current situation as I've encountered it on the ground in my investigations suggests that the trade in small items from prehistoric/early historic contexts continues unabated...anywhere these items can be mixed into larger antiques collections, and find a ready (and GROWING!) tourist market.

While in Hoi An, an ancient port city on the central coast of Vietnam, I was browsing the many side streets of the city's "Old Town" district, itself a World Heritage site (as much of the architecture dates from the 1500-1800s). Although the number of shops catering to tourists inside the Old Town itself (supposedly a more commerce-free zone than the newer section of the city outside of the World Heritage boundaries) has increased markedly since my last visit in 2005, the ambiance of the place felt the same. I was saddened, however, to come across several "souvenir" shops openly selling metal, glass and stone artifacts (see above right), including several quite beautiful restrung necklaces, clearly deriving from late prehistoric Sa Huynh and early Cham cultural sites (most likely burials), as the central coast region has long been known as the archaeological heartland of these consecutive cultures. As more excavation, research, and museum display of these artifacts has been done by international teams, the more that accidental finds have been recognized as valuable, and the more deliberate looting has increased.

According to the shop's owner (from whom I received permission to take artifact photographs), new shipments would come into his store every couple of months, mixed in with other objects...from an area no more specific than "around My Son." It's likely that the middleman delivering the artifacts was never told himself, if the original discoverer even knew. No, seeing such objects for sale does not guarantee that they were deliberately looted (as opposed to accidental field finds), but the contexts of many Sa Huynh glass and bronze items as grave goods makes it likely...and does that even matter when an artifact is offered for sale to an unsuspecting tourist? I think not... How much? $70 would get you a small bronze bell (at that shop), $250 a medium sized one, $80 a corroded bronze spear point or fragment of spiral bracelet, beads for $10 a pop. By my reckoning on that day, this was one of six or seven similar shops in the area... An ever-present problem indeed!

What can be done? It's hard to say. While collaborative excavation and student training and outreach is increasing, life remains difficult, and still centered around agriculture, ensuring both continued supply and incentive. Likewise, tourists and expatriates continue to pour into the country (and region). Many provincial museums remain small, under-visited and under-funded, although I've noticed this changing, at least in the north. While some tourists do buy replicas of some of the more elaborate historic bronze and iron objects, it remains too easy to acquire the real thing, and while those I've talked to on the street (motorbike drivers, food vendors etc.) might be both impressed and baffled that one would devote their life to "ancient things" (the literal translation of archaeology in Vietnamese), I have rarely gotten the sense that prehistoric times/artifacts are thought of as "heritage" to most people. This, I feel, has to be the first step, or else more direct intermediary measures such as closing legal loopholes to the local trade or increasing monitoring, will not be enough. For my part, I will continue to work in the area; excavating, educating and sharing all I can about ancient life in a country I feel privileged to explore.

Share |

Sphere: Related Content

The Penn Museum & Robert Hecht Jr.

Tom Avril, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, reports this month on 24 pieces of gold from the University of Pennsylvania's Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. The items in question, including ear rings, neck laces and brooches, were purchased over 40 years ago by the museum from a Philadelphia antiquities dealer; they were not accompanied by any documentation of their origin and it seemed likely the gold had been looted.

The Penn Museum was founded in 1887 and most of its collection was acquired through archaeological expeditions. In 1966 George Allen, of Hesperia Art, approached the museum with an opportunity to purchase a collection of gold that he said was most likely from ancient Troy. The items were similar in style to gold found by Heinrich Schliemann in 1873, in Turkey, at a site he believed to be Homer's Troy. However, this collection had disappeared during WW II. The Penn Museum agreed to buy the treasures despite having misgivings; Penn curator Rodney Young acknowledged that the items had probably been looted. The items went on display in the museum with no information about them available until 1993, when Schliemann's collection suddenly resurfaced. Russian officials announced that the gold was in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow; it had been taken from Germany by the Soviet army as war booty.

This announcement renewed interest in the Penn Museum's Trojan gold. Ernst Pernicka and Hermann Born set about examining both collections to determine where the gold had been mined and whether the two collections belonged together.

Meanwhile, C. Brian Rose, a curator at the Penn, searched the museum's archives for more information about the golds purchase. George Allen was the antiquities dealer who had sold the museum the gold but he died in 1998. His son remembered that he had an associate named Hecht. Robert E. Hecht Jr. is an antiquities dealer who has been periodically, though never convicted, of selling looted artifacts. He is now 90 years of age and on trial in Rome on charges related to looting. Hecht confirmed that he was the source of the Penn's Trojan gold; he had purchased the collection from another dealer, George Zakos, who is now dead. Hecht said he did not know if the items had been looted or where they came from.

The analysis of the Penn Museum's and Schliemann's gold revealed that both collections did in fact come from the same source. Moreover, a spec of soil on one of the Penn's pieces revealed it had been buried somewhere under Trojan influence (Turkey, Greece or southeast Europe). Science had provided us with new information despite the fact that the gold had not been properly excavated. This emphasises how much more could of been learnt if the archaeological context had been in tact.

This story is interesting as it claims the gold collection bought by the Penn Museum came from Robert E. Hecht Jr., a suspected dealer of illicit antiquities. Did the Penn know that the artifacts came from Hecht and that he was believed to have dealt with looted items? Hecht claimed that he had no idea if the gold purchased by the Penn had been illegally excavated. He also claimed the lack of documentation did not deprive the artifacts of important context adding that "the main thing is the beauty of the thing...the Venus de Milo, whether it came from the east side or the west side of the island, doesn't really change its appeal to the modern world, I think".

In 2006 the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, under pressure from Italian authorities, was forced to return an item it had purchased from Hecht in 1972; a painted vessel known as the Euphronios krater. Evidence had been found that it had been looted from a tomb in Italy and through another dealer's hands before Hecht's.

Nonetheless, it is important to note the historical context of this purchase by the Penn Museum. The UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970 had not yet been drafted. Indeed, the Penn Museum was the first museum to announce in 1970 that it would no longer acquire undocumented objects, arguing that such acquisitions encouraged the "wholesale destruction of archaeological sites". Did the Penn Museum sense trouble after dealing with Hecht? Was the museum trying to do the right thing? Or did the Penn realise that displaying artifacts with no genuine provenance would tarnish the museum's reputation ?

Post your thoughts below...

Share |

Sphere: Related Content

SAFE's Flickr Project

On January 12, 2010 Haiti was changed forever by a devastating earthquake that took the lives of thousands and left a huge portion of the country in ruins. SAFE/Saving Antiquities for Everyone recognizes that in times of mass destruction, human lives must always be first priority. At the same time, Haiti stands to lose its heritage, which has been a source of great pride throughout the country's troubled history. Historic neighborhoods and landmarks like the National Palace, the Holy Trinity Cathedral, and the Supreme Court have been leveled by the earthquake. Artists, art dealers, foreign envoys, and others are scrambling to assess the cultural loss and to ensure the safety of portable cultural objects like books, paintings, documents, and artifacts.

To join these efforts to preserve Haiti's heritage, SAFE has initiated a Flickr project, "Haiti: Look back to look ahead," to collect pictures and videos of what has now become intangible, that is, life in Haiti before January 12, 2010. We are looking for images of Haiti's built environment before it was reduced to rubble and of the people whose lifestyles defined these places. After the wreckage is removed and discussions about rebuilding begin, Haiti's past—both its most fatal historic problems and its rich cultural legacy—must be kept at the forefront of our imaginations. SAFE hopes to create a place for visual remembering as well as visual reckoning of what should be changed, restored, or recreated as Haiti looks to its future.

Over 300 photos have already been gathered on our Flickr page. If you would like to share your own photos of Haiti, we encourage you to e-mail them to the21tin@photos.flickr.com

Share |

Sphere: Related Content