by Antiquities Dealers' Association | Jun 7, 2016 | Uncategorized, Views |
Ivan Macquisten, policy and media adviser to the Antiquities Dealers Association (ADA), speaks on behalf of the ADA at Destruction of Monuments and Memory in the Middle East, a seminar organised by the Iran Heritage Foundation, at Asia House in London on December 16, 2015 (video of speech)
Firstly, I would like to thank you very much indeed for inviting the Antiquities Dealers Association to speak today. I can’t tell you how much we appreciate it, especially as it so rarely happens. In fact, apart from one other conference recently, I have not seen a single instance of a panel, symposium, debate or conference giving the trade a say, so what you have done is really important.
I’m not standing here today with a view to any special pleading for the trade. I am standing here to tell you that what is going on in Iraq and Syria, first from the human perspective and then also from the cultural and historical viewpoint, is as abhorrent to members of the Antiquities Dealers Association and other honest dealers and auctioneers as it is to you and everyone else.
That is why we want to bring our knowledge and expertise to bear in fighting this evil. All we ask of you is that you allow us to do so.
The perception of antiquities dealers as the devil’s disciples is a long misplaced view that even now rears its head as unfounded accusations of dealers funding Daesh appear in the media with depressing regularity – accusations we do not take lightly.
But before we examine what could be behind these ‘blood antiquities’ and billion-dollar headlines, I want to talk about not what separates us but what brings each and everyone one of us here today together.
Principally we share your desire to see Daesh defeated, the peoples of Syria and Iraq given hope, peace and safety, and to make sure that we neither wittingly nor unwittingly contribute to the funding of terrorist activities.
It has been very hard to keep up with the proliferation of conferences and seminars on this subject, as well as all the news stories and newly formed organisations aimed at highlighting real or perceived problems with the antiquities trade.
Nonetheless, we have been monitoring the many and varied claims in the media that looted Syrian and Iraqi antiquities are being traded in London, New York and Western Europe. Aside from the Hobby Lobby investigation now underway, centring on around 200 cuneiform tablets thought to have come out of Iraq illegally, we have yet to see any claim supported by hard evidence.
We all know and understand the vital importance of provenance when it comes to trading in antiquities, but it is also important to apply the same rigour to providing evidence to support claims of wrongdoing.
We need to deal in facts, not propaganda
We are not complacent about the need to be vigilant, nor the need to prevent what looting is taking place, nor how essential it is to prevent trading in trafficked antiquities. However, we need to deal in facts, not propaganda or emotive speculation.
We should be able to rely on what the authorities tell us, but it is difficult when even they do not agree.
Take, for instance, Col. Matthew Bogdanos, whose work protecting the Iraqi National Museum formed the basis of his book Thieves of Baghdad. At a conference held at the Asia Society, New York, on September 24, he told delegates that so much information was classified he had to clear what he said in advance. Giving no source or evidence, presumably as a result of these restrictions, he told the audience, “ISIS is making tens of millions, and I am telling you that this is a low figure that is not exaggerated”.
Just five days later at the Bureau of Educational Affairs Conflict Antiquities symposium, Andrew Keller, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, said: “The U.S. government assesses that ISIL has probably earned several million dollars from antiquity trafficking since mid-2014. But the actual amount is unknown.”
Meanwhile an October 28 article by Jed Lipinski on Nola.com, the website of the Times-Picayune of New Orleans, profiles Tess Davis, executive director of the Antiquities Coalition, a campaign and lobby organisation described in the article as “a Washington-based nonprofit that unites experts against global antiquities trafficking”. Lipinski writes: “The federal government estimates the group (Daesh) could be making as much as $100 million a year from smuggled artifacts, many of which may already be entering U.S. ports.”
So which is it? Bogdanos’s tens of millions? Keller’s several million since mid-2014 or Lipinski’s $100 million a year?
Maybe it’s none of these. An October 29 article on Washington website thehill.com quotes Senator Robert Casey Jr saying antiquities trafficking from Syria and Iraq is second only to illicit oil sales, which bring in up to $100m a month. He plans to introduce a new bill restricting trade in antiquities further on the strength of this.
Mauro Miedico, Chief of Section, of the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime, followed Andrew Keller’s speech at the same symposium.
He told the gathering: “In 2011, my office, UNODC, estimated that the proceeds of transnational crime related to art and cultural property amounted to between $3.4 and $6.3 billion yearly.”
This was his office’s estimate, from four years ago, of crime related to the entire global art market, of which antiquities is a minute part. How does that translate to the $3 billion figure we have heard oft quoted as the value of the trade in illicit antiquities?
‘Cosy cabal of academics and others’
Later Col Bogdanos, when asked who is buying the trafficked antiquities, says: “It is a cozy cabal of academics, art historians, dealers, gallery owners, auction houses, museums and private collectors.” However, again he offers no evidence of this.
How many of these people has he prosecuted in his current role of Assistant District Attorney? Surely he could tell us a figure for that, at least? Certainly, the Hobby Lobby case aside, our monitoring of the media has yet to show up a single arrest, let alone a charge or conviction, for a US, British or Western European antiquities dealer on a charge of trading in antiquities looted from Syria or Iraq since Daesh invaded.
Perhaps Katie Paul could point the way. She is Research Director for the Antiquities Coalition and stated in her October 1 Huffington Post article: “…The American antiquities market is funding the very terror group the US government is seeking to eradicate.” I assume she has evidence of this, although, again, the article offers none.
Nor does Senator Casey, who, despite telling Washington’s thehill.com that the looted antiquities trade is second only to the up to $100m a month illicit oil trade, does not know of any specific cases of U.S. citizens who have bought stolen artifacts from ISIS, but, “wouldn’t be surprised if it is happening”.
I do not quote all of the above to be facetious, but to illustrate a fraction of the issue we are dealing with and why claims in the media need challenging if they are presented without source evidence.
If US Government representatives speaking at conferences within days of each other cannot agree on the figures, we have a serious problem.
Another US Government representative, Robert Hartung from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, also at the Conflict Antiquities symposium, announced the “Rewards for Justice” programme would offer up to $5 million for information leading to the disruption of antiquities sales that benefit Daesh. What he didn’t say was that the programme applies to oil smuggling as well and this accounts for hundreds of millions of dollars of Daesh revenue. Has the $5 million been awarded yet? (See page 9 of 17 of video transcript)
So far I have highlighted the lack of evidence put forward together with a series of conflicting statistics when it comes to the value of looted and trafficked antiquities.
Now let’s look at what evidence does exist and where it comes from.
The 2015 TEFAF Art Market Report, produced by Arts Economics, shows the entire 2014 global Art & Antiques market reached €51 billion. (See page 15, Key Findings)
Legitimate global Syrian antiquities market worth around €20m
Current research undertaken by IADAA (the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art) into the legitimate global trade in antiquities estimates its value at between €150 million and €200 million, so 0.4% of the global Art & Antiques market. How much of that is Syrian antiquities? Probably around 5-10%. That would be around €20 million at most. (See James Ede, ‘Dealers: Trade, Traffic and the Consequences of Demonisation’, IADAA, Articles of IADAA Members)
Commonsense tells us that the illicit trade will be smaller than this figure, so this is what we are likely to be dealing with in reality. Nothing to get complacent about but nowhere near the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars being quoted.
All sides in the debate agree that a very significant source of evidence resulted from a US Special Forces raid in Syria in May. Andrew Keller revealed this during his speech, referred to above.
The raid, at the home of Abu Sayyaf, a high-ranking Daesh officer, recovered receipts from his six-month tenure as head of Daesh’s antiquities division.
These showed that he collected at least $265,000 in taxes for antiquities – known to be charged at a rate of 20% – which would equate to an antiquities trade of about $1.3 million for a few months, perhaps amounting to $4 million over the course of a year.
Importantly, Neil Brodie, Senior Research Fellow in the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research at the University of Glasgow, and highly active for decades as a campaigner for more trade restrictions, has subjected these findings to analysis in his recent article for the European Union National Institutes for Culture.
Brodie analyses the receipts and confirms the $4 million figure, although there is some confusion as to whether the receipts also encompass minerals. Certainly, Brodie notes, this “would pay for a lot of antiquities, yet very few have been identified on the destination market”.
Ben Taub, a journalist, has dug a little deeper, having some of the Arabic on the receipts that had not been made public by the US State department translated by Bernard Haykel, a professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton and an expert on Daesh. He says its is unambiguous; these documents urge the excavation teams to extract not only antiquities but also metals and minerals. So, what does this
$4 million figure refer to?
Brodie also notes that the more “archaeologically-rich” western areas of Syria remain under the control of forces loyal to Assad, and points to a further source of evidence showing that antiquities provide just 0.8% of Daesh’s income, which “accords well with the US Department of the Treasury’s seemingly low estimation of the antiquities trade’s financial importance”.
‘Archaeology community’s strategy risks inappropriate response’
Brodie goes on to argue that “There is an opinion within the archaeological community that highlighting the financial importance to ISIL of the antiquities trade will make it an issue of national security and ensure a strong government response. The danger with this line of reasoning is that the response might be inappropriate.” The ADA endorses this view. But it suits the agenda of those who are keen on dismantling the antiquities trade.
He echoes Keller in calling for effective strategies to eliminate demand.
If he means demand for looted and trafficked antiquities, the ADA backs him all the way.
Objects may be appearing in countries bordering Syria, principally Turkey and the Lebanon, as well as on social media; in all probability ending up with those who are not part of the known and traditional market. Why do we suspect this? Because we are not seeing anything on the market here in London.
There is a great deal of work to be done to identify exactly where looted material is going, but it is clearly not going to the traditional and established market. The types of objects – beads, coins, pottery – that we have all seen photos of are generally of very poor quality or fake and are of a type that have been on the market for many decades and in any event wouldn’t go very far in funding the rent on a London flat let alone the world’s most notorious terrorist organisation.
Of course the repeated quoting of enormous and patently absurd values of looted antiquities apparently being sold in Europe and elsewhere is only going to fuel further illegal activity in the Middle East and for this reason, alone, the media – and those prompting journalists – need to behave responsibly.
So what are we in the trade doing to make sure we do not handle illicit antiquities?
Our trade associations have actively collaborated with Government in this country to address these issues and will continue to do so. The ADA, for instance, has completely rewritten its Code of Conduct, with mechanisms in place should a member be found in contravention of the Code.
We intend to encourage non-trade association members to embrace the tenets of our Code of conduct and will work hard to ensure that all those who deal in antiquities in this country remain vigilant. You will be able to read the Code in full when we relaunch our website in 2016, as well as much else to improve transparency, clarity and due diligence, such as the links to Red Lists.
And we are also working closely with Law Enforcement, including Scotland Yard’s Art & Antiques Squad, academics and Members of Parliament to ensure that we are part of the ongoing debate. Our involvement is absolutely essential.
Clear provenance carries a premium
No other area of the international art market now prizes provenance more than we do. Best of all, clear provenance now carries a premium at auction, encouraging all concerned to establish it as often as possible.
If objects are being offered well below market value, especially by people you do not know, alarm bells should ring.
However, we too rely on information and this is rarely forthcoming from source countries. This may be for a number of reasons but this cannot continue if we are to be effective.
The trade’s critics are a little too fond of using the Becchina and Medici archives to beat us over the head with. Give us access to them and we will happily ensure they form a major part of all due diligence.
What is needed is not breast-beating and demonisation of the trade, but new and accurate data that provides better grounds for response.
As Neil Brodie warns, the response to the Syrian crisis must not be inappropriate.
It is for governments and international organisations to source this information and to pass it on to those on the ground, including law enforcement, museums and the trade. But this information must be based on facts and not spin or speculation. Only then can we assess what is actually occurring and make sure we are able to halt or reduce smuggling on the borders of these countries.
So how can we in the trade help?
There is no doubt that amidst the destruction, illicit material is being squirrelled away, as has been suggested. This really worries us… as this material will necessarily surface on the open market sooner or later. This could be some years from now.
The challenge for us is to make sure we have the correct mechanisms in place to prevent the legitimate trade from handling illicit material and, where possible, identify it and return it if and when it does appear. It is clear that the help of the trade is going to be vital in confronting this problem and it will require a long-term collaboration.
We must find ways to protect archaeological sites.
In this country there must be an effective system of communication between all parties concerned. What we are finding is that there are press leaks to different individuals with different agendas. What we do need to recognise is that in order to make sure London remains ‘clean’, there is a clear alert system to all of us who are involved from law enforcement, Customs, counter terrorism and academia to the trade. Problems cannot be resolved via the media and press briefings.
We must also find a solution for those antiquities currently circulating in the market, a line drawn in the sand that gives those objects an amnesty so they can be traded freely. It will make managing the future of antiquities a more achievable goal. If you want to suppress the illicit market, it is imperative to support the legitimate market and to encourage transparency as opposed to fear.
Those critics of the trade who find themselves unable to work with us should perhaps ask themselves if this attitude is really in the greater interest. It should be clear to all who have been following recent events who your enemy really is… and it really isn’t us. We are part of the solution and not the problem.
by Antiquities Dealers' Association | Jun 7, 2016 | Views |
We have talked today a lot about looting and have seen many illustrations, but it is clear that the greatest crisis currently facing world heritage is the destruction taking place in Syria and Iraq. The major causes of the destruction are two-fold: war with indiscriminate shelling and bombing and deliberate destruction of monuments by fanatics in the name of their religion.
Looting comes a poor third. Recent lurid headlines have suggested that the funding of ISIS through the sale of illicitly excavated antiquities is the foremost problem. Clearly it is not. Wild speculation that tens of millions, even sometimes billions of pounds worth of antiquities are entering the market from Syria is common. No-one with any knowledge of the market could give a moment’s credence to such ideas.
Although we have no doubt that amidst the destruction there is a lot of clandestine excavation taking place, there is no evidence to date of any significant material surfacing on the market. In any event, the licit market is small and the vast majority of antiquities have relatively modest value. Best estimates show that the global annual turnover for all classical and pre-classical antiquities is less than €200m per annum. The proportion of that consisting of objects from Syria is a small fraction, probably less than 10%. The illicit market must necessarily be smaller than that. As an ex-soldier I can attest that these sums of money don’t buy many arms.
At this point I need to emphasise the difference between the licit trade and illegal traffic. The licit antiquities trade has no interest in the illegal traffic in stolen antiquities. The preservation of our ancient heritage is as vital to us as it is to anyone else here. The fact that we come from a different perspective does not mean that our reverence for world cultural heritage is any less real than yours. Indeed, at its best, the trade is a positive force, devoting large resources to conservation and research. The earliest roots of archaeology start with collectors; the first museum were founded by collectors. It is the job of museums to collect and conserve for the benefit of the public. This is impossible without a trade.
The trade has not always had a good record in the past in dealing with smuggled material, but things have changed dramatically in the last 10 to 15 years and continue to do so. Our trade associations have actively collaborated with Government in this country to address these issues. I also acknowledge that much of this change has been driven by our critics. Yet they should also acknowledge that in recent years we have made huge strides; no other area of the art market now prizes provenance more than we do. The proof of this lies in the high price at auction fetched by those objects with fine demonstrable ownership history. But we too rely on information and this is rarely forthcoming from source countries, sometimes through a misplaced sense of pride, sometimes because of corruption, sometimes because of lassitude. Even close to home we are deliberately denied access to information – the so-called Becchina archive (named after a man who has not even been convicted) is jealously guarded, and morsels of information drip fed. How on earth are we supposed to conduct our necessary due diligence in the face of this attitude?
The Future
The present question for all of us is ‘how much can be salvaged from these wars and by what means?’
What is needed is not breast-beating and demonisation of the trade, but new and accurate data that provides better grounds for answering these questions. It is for governments and international organisations to source this information and to pass it on to those on the ground, including law enforcement, museums and the trade. But this information must be based on facts and not speculation. Only then can we halt or reduce smuggling on the borders of these countries. Perhaps the attention should be targeted on the countries directly bordering the conflict zones.
So how can we in the trade help?
There is no doubt that amidst the destruction, illicit material is being squirrelled away. This really worries us as this material will necessarily surface on the open market sooner or later. This could be some years from now. The challenge therefore is to identify it and, where possible, to return it when it is safe to do so. It is clear that the help of the trade is going to be vital in confronting this problem and it will require a long-term collaboration. Those critics of the trade who find themselves unable to work with us should perhaps ask themselves if this attitude is really in the greater interest. It should be clear to you following recent events who your enemy really is; it isn’t us.
The key to the problem lies in information. The technology now exists to record objects cheaply, and we would suggest that UNESCO should provide the support to allow vulnerable museums, and in particular off-site storage facilities, to photograph all their holdings. Once an object is recorded, the chances of recovery improve to an enormous extent. The same applies to above-ground archaeological sites. This is of course no help in the case of clandestine excavation, but it is a start.
This issue can also be tackled from another direction. My trade Association is working on a project which is intended to record objects which are on the market, in perpetuity. This is intended to build up a database of those objects which can be legally traded while providing an opportunity for potential claimants to identify those which are stolen. This is a huge demonstration of good faith. It will also make life much more difficult for those who deal illegally.
We are prepared and willing to play our part. It is a vital one. If you want to suppress the black market, support the white.
Finally, I have to say that the best way of curtailing this mayhem would be by returning the region to peace. At least we dealers cannot be blamed for the war: that is something our governments have to think about.
When I think of Nimrud, I feel like weeping. I have never been there and now never will. I have saved the last 15 seconds of my allotted time for a moment of silence. RIP Nimrud.
James Ede
Speech at the Culture In Crisis Conference
The V&A
April 2015
London Conference on Culture in Crisis
London Declaration on Culture in Crisis
by Antiquities Dealers' Association | May 9, 2016 | Views |
There are many antique shops and dealers in antiques throughout the country. Often they belong to the British Antique Dealers’ Association (BADA) or to the London and Provincial Antiques Dealers’ Association (LAPADA); there are also more focused local groups, such as the Cotswolds Antique Dealers’ Association, etc. It is not so easy, however, to find dealers in antiquities. Antiquities call for a high degree of specialist approach and, whilst many people would love to own an antiquity, they are often cautious of buying by virtue of their own lack of knowledge or knowing where to go for what they want.
It is not often realised that just because an object may be centuries, or even several thousand years old, it does not have to be financially inaccessible. The relics of past civilisations are still generally available, subject of course to the laws governing their export, which have been introduced in many of the modern countries that were once the home of ancient civilisations. Despite these restrictions there is an ample supply of objects from older collections that are always being broken up and dispersed, usually through auction houses.
What to buy or collect is one of the big questions facing anyone who wants, literally, to handle the past as represented by its material culture, be it a stone sculpture, small bronzes, jewellery or simply small domestic items like everyday pottery or personal things such as a Roman toilet set with tweezers, cuticle pushers, and so on.
Most people come to antiquities through reading books on ancient history or archaeology. It is quite easy to acquire, for example, a decorative Greek vase made in the Greek colonies of South Italy in the later fourth century BC, around the time that Alexander the Great was pushing eastwards against the Persian empire, carving his way into history and legend. Roman or Palestinian pots and pottery oil lamps made in the early years of the Christian era do not have to cost the proverbial “arm and a leg” and earlier, really attractively shaped and complete pots from Palestine of Old Testament times are easily available at well under £100 a piece.
Enormous range of prices
Obviously, the prices of antiquities cover an enormous range, depending on what the item is. The great Roman silver “Sevso” treasure of 14 silver vessels that was in the news in recent years has been valued as a collection at around £40 million, but that is at the extreme of the available market. Large bronze “crossbow” brooches (fibulae) of that same Late Roman Period, worn like a modern safety pin to secure a cloak or other clothing, can range in price upwards from £30 or so whilst larger, fine examples, naturally command more money, in the region of £200 to £300 each. The point about collecting antiquities is that they provide the opportunity to reach back across the centuries and actually handle the past to, if you like, feel a rapport with the original ancient owner. There is tremendous scope for individual taste in collecting and, not least, for research.
Many “amateur” collectors have made a particular area their very own by detailed study as they have built up their collections. Their knowledge will often surpass that of a curator in a museum, who invariably has to take a broader view, or of the dealer who supplied the items. Buying antiquities, like antiques, tends to be a personal thing. Collectors get to know dealers who stock the items that interest them, and not least, the dealer gets to know his client’s requirements and keeps an eye on the market for available pieces. The dealer will often get as much pleasure in securing items for a collector, helping and watching the collection grow, as does his client – and they both enjoy and learn from the contact.
Most of the antiquities dealers in the UK belong to the Antiquities Dealers’ Association (ADA), and also quite a number of foreign dealers as Corresponding Associate Members. By membership the dealers keep in touch, broaden their own expertise and can collectively act under the Code of Conduct of the ADA, guaranteeing all the objects they sell to the best of their professional knowledge and expertise to be as they are described and of the date stated.
Peter A Clayton
Treasurer
The Antiquities Dealers’ Association
by Antiquities Dealers' Association | May 9, 2016 | Views |
A fairly widely held and longstanding view argues that there is no place for trade in, and private ownership of, antiquities. The only place for them is – at best – in situ at their place of origin or – not quite so good – in a museum.
The archaeologists, academics and others who hold this view see no natural link between themselves and the world of commerce. The trade merely blights pure scholarship and is all about take and no give, they believe; it should be stopped or, at the very least, highly discouraged and certainly frowned upon.
While we respect their views, there is a long tradition of trade and the ADA argues that a legitimate trade controlled by rigorous codes of conduct has its place in the wider field of antiquities and should not simply be seen in isolation.
After all, responsible collectors regard themselves as no more than the temporary curators of ancient objects. It is private and scholarly enterprise that has vastly contributed to bringing into being the museums, national and local, which are a glory of most cultures. Just think of Sir Hans Sloane who had collected over 71,000 objects by the time of his death in 1753. His collection was bequeathed to the nation and it became the founding collection of the British Museum.
A symbiotic relationship has flourished between scholarship and private enterprise in the world of antiquities for centuries.
Collectors helped found the earliest museums
Even the earliest museums were founded on the patronage of private collectors. Take, for instance, the earliest museum of all that we know about, one formed by the Babylonian princess, Ennigaldi-Nanna, in about 530BC. It was excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley in 1925.
In 1471 Pope Sixtus IV donated Roman sculpture to the People of Rome. The Basilius Amerbach cabinet formed the foundation (1661) of the extant collection which graces the Swiss city of Basel. Ignazio Paterno-Castello, 5th Duke of Biscari, opened the first archaeological museum in his palazzo in Syracuse, Sicily in 1757. It was thanks to the generosity and foresight of Edith Pretty that the British Museum is now able to display one its finest treasures, that of the Sutton Hoo Anglo-Saxon ship burial, without which we would all be the poorer in our knowledge of early English history.
Right on our doorstep we have the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, the oldest continually active purpose-built museum, which opened its doors on May 21, 1683. The core of its original collection came from the horticultural and curiosity collecting Tradescant family via the hands of Elias Ashmole, from whom the institution takes its name. Thus began the rich and enduring tradition of private collectors supporting museums in Britain.
What would we know of Minoan Greek culture, for instance, were it not for the efforts of Arthur Evans (d.1941). Artefacts properly and legally excavated by him now grace the Ashmolean Museum.
Without those collectors past and present acquiring their possessions – often from dealers or auction houses – and the generous bequests that followed, where would these seats of learning be today?
The point of all this is that private individuals contribute enormously to the public ownership and display to those who would be learned.
The value of collecting to scholarship
The trade and the private collector still have much to offer learning, conservation and preservation and have a rich history of contributing to cultural understanding and development, to museums and their collections.
In recent years, the outstanding bequest of the late collector Sir Arthur Gilbert has boosted the holdings of the Victoria & Albert Museum, adding significantly to our understanding of silver and micro-mosaics in particular.
Of course it is not simply museum collections that owe their being to private sponsorship. Private scholarship has also been a major contributor to understanding.
Meanwhile, just as historical and geographical context is all-important to understanding the significance of objects, so it is to understanding the development of scholarship, curatorship and collecting. As time passes, new and unprecedented factors come into play, forcing us to rethink our approach, tighten guidelines and restrict practices. Altering the context of their discovery and excavation, if you like.
While it may be possible to see how one can apply the new set of rules to the excavation and movement of artefacts taking place now, how can we retrospectively insist on the same set of standards for objects that emerged in earlier times under less rigid conditions? The paperwork simply doesn’t exist or, if it does, often does not contain the level of detail required under the new regime since it was not required at the time of issue. One has only to inspect examples of the export licences the Egyptian government issued a quarter of a century ago to appreciate this. What was good enough for officialdom in the country of origin then would prove unacceptable now, but it was their standards by which the international trade operated.
Should this irrevocably blight what was legally and ethically excavated and traded all those years ago? Many say yes, but this seems unduly oppressive. Should museums return to benefactors the collections they were once happy to accept only decades ago? This is not a possibility, it is a reality and collectors are reporting this is already happening. Part of the joy of numerous collectors has been to donate or bequeath their collections to museums for the public benefit. With museums returning and rejecting artefacts it now raises the question of who will be the future custodians of these representations of our past? It is a known fact of human nature that more care is afforded to objects deemed to have value, either monetary or prestige, aside from their academic value. If these same objects are in future regarded with little or no value, their pedigree somehow sullied, then how well will they be looked after and by whom?
How do we strike a balance?
How do we balance this position with the need to ensure that ancient works of art are not the result of recent looting and illegal export? If we could answer this, we would all be happy. What should be clearly appreciated, though, is that it is the differing standards applied to the paperwork then and now that is the true source of tensions at the centre of the debate, not conflicting approaches to the historical and cultural importance of the objects themselves, nor the importance of protecting them and the countries and peoples from which they emerge. Here, happily, the trade and academe can agree. More should be made of this accord.
The Treasure Act 1996, too, has done much to improve matters in recent years. It is very fair and works well.
Striking a balance between public and private ownership is also important. The recent crisis facing the academic Wedgwood collection is a good case in point. A unique reference archive of material explaining the history and manufacturing methods of the great firm of Wedgwood, its future came under grave threat as the result of a peculiar and obscure legal anomaly that left it exposed as the single greatest asset in relation to claims based on the company’s pension fund.
Fortunately the Government and common sense intervened and its future as a single collection of artefacts is now safe. However, no one argues that its importance as such should exclude the private ownership of other pieces of Wedgwood pottery. In fact, it is self evident that encouraging wider collecting of this material will only increase scholarship, interest in and understanding of the central reference collection. This is far more likely to guarantee the continuing status and protection of the reference collection; a ban on private collecting or trade would inevitably lead to a waning of interest and scholarship and the eventual irrelevance of the museum’s holding. What price its future then?
What this tells us is that a lively and active trade and collecting community is vital to the lifeblood of any field of study relating to historical objects.
Trade can help future-proof the study of archaeology
In Egyptian terms, while no one would expect to be able to trade in the treasures of Tutankhamun, a scarab exported under culturally acceptable and easily administered rules does no harm to Egyptology – indeed, it could benefit it if it sparks a child’s imagination and leads them into the world of archaeology. A case of future-proofing par excellence.
We must also take care when considering modern claims over ancient rights. Over time national boundaries change. For example, the Greeks are very sensitive that classical Greek antiquities remain in their country. However, not all ancient Greek art was created within the Greek borders of today. Their ancient culture spread much wider than that. Many works of art that are now catalogued as ‘Greek’, although culturally so were made anywhere between what is now Turkey and the west Mediterranean.
In the more general world of art and antiques, the long-established export rules in Italy, designed to protect its cultural treasures, have been so draconian as to all but kill off its international market, even for the least interesting and significant examples of its art. Waking up to this at long last, the Italian government is now considering relaxing the law for lesser works. While still protecting the treasures, this would not only help its market and revenues, but would undoubtedly foster wider international interest in these lesser artists and the world from which they came.
Conflict throughout Western Asia today also forces us to consider the safety of artefacts. The destruction of the Bamiyan sculptures by the Taliban in 2001 does not argue for the retention of all great art on its native heath. Preserving ancient art exposed to such threats must be the priority for the future, but how best to do it?
Syria is in chaos and the usual controls have broken down. However, as Professor Sir John Boardman, Emeritus of Oxford University, argues, we all have a responsibility to prevent looting and smuggling, including those nations from whom artefacts are removed. Article 5 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention puts the primary burden on the country of origin. As the Convention summarises: “It is essential for every State to become increasingly alive to the moral obligations to respect its own cultural heritage and that of all nations.”
In conclusion then, we must protect cultural heritage wherever it lies and we must take especial care of it in conflict zones. However, in fulfilling this solemn obligation, we must take care not to ignore one aspect of public interest entirely as we pursue another. Otherwise we risk sowing the seeds of future cultural negligence by cutting off the very source and lifeblood of scholarship and interest. As the leading art law counsel William Pearlstein says: “…museums cannot perform their obligations to research, conserve, and exhibit artworks without a vigorous art market.”
Richard Falkiner
2016
Recent Comments