2011 Congenial Bedfellows? The Academy and the Antiquities Trade (original) (raw)
Related papers
2021
This study analyses how museums avoid the regulations and restrictions on acquiring antiquities through active non-compliance of the internal and external collections policies. The illicit nature of the antiquities market has long been a topic of discussion among archaeologists and criminologists, the role museums play in the illicit market has somewhat been overlooked, particularly when discussing of white-collar crime. By doing content analysis of museums’ collections policies, object provenance information, and the ethical guidelines of external museum organisations, this research seeks to argue museums acting in extra-legal ways through the intentional circumventing of ethical requirements that come with acquiring antiquities for their collection.
Trading archaeology is not just a matter of antiquities. Archaeological practice as a commodity
In theory, archaeology was born as a knowledge-based activity in which the most important concern was getting to know the past better. Since the very beginning, we have been creating ‘products’ in terms of heritage and archaeological information. In some way, perhaps due to the broadly extended capitalist mentality of the leading Anglo-Saxon stream, these ‘products’ soon became commodities in a Heritage market that has now become a commodity itself. “What are you selling?” is one of the most frequently asked questions during the quest for project funding. We are selling Knowledge, Identity, Dreams, Pride and, sometimes, even stones. The first ethical issues arise here, in the building of ‘products’ that are usually misused by the public in its different facets. The mix of politics, money and media has created a ‘Culture of Archaeology’ that deeply affects daily issues not directly related to archaeology. Are we responsible for that? Looking at the growth of archaeology in developing countries might answer this question. The imposition of a value for the past/heritage from an occidental point of view has created a tourism-related market, supported by International Organizations that, in some way, are still having a neo-colonial attitude towards archaeology. Moreover, since the growth of urban archaeology, CRM and commercial archaeology have become a major issue for the profession. Archaeological practice itself has become a commodity for developers who need a new ‘paper’ for their building permission. How ethical is it to sell ourselves for something else than research? Can we call ‘research’ what we do in this framework? Answers should be easy and clear, but this market, which covers more than 90% of all archaeological practice in many countries, has too many shadows. Today, commercial archaeology is growing fast, expanding it activities from outreach to management. Thus, the main ethical concern that arises is this: Can we privately work in archaeology viewing it as a commodity, when it still is a public resource that belongs to all of us?
The illicit antiquities scandal: what it has done to classical archaeology collections
(with Christopher Chippindale) ‘The illicit antiquities scandal: what it has done to classical archaeology collections’, review article of P. Watson and C. Todeschini, The Medici conspiracy: the illicit journey of looted antiquities from Italy's tomb raiders to the world's great museums (New York: Public Affairs, 2006), in American Journal of Archaeology 111 (2007), 571-74.
Mapping the Supply: Usual Suspects and Identified Antiquities in 'Reputable' Auction Houses in 2013
The confiscation of the Medici, Becchina and Symes-Michaelides archives by the Italian authorities (with the cooperation of the French and Swiss) and Greek police and judicial authorities , has led to more than 250 repatriations of antiquities so far. Apart from these successful claims, the main contribution of the ongoing research on the archives lies in revealing the fundamental role played by the main members of the international antiquities market (auction houses and galleries) in circulating illicit material after the 1970 UNESCO convention (against the illicit traffic in cultural material). It is telling for the current antiquities market, that despite the exposure of the wrongdoings of Sotheby's, Christie's, Bonhams, 'Phoenix Ancient Art', 'Royal Athena Galleries', etc., the same auction houses and galleries continue to rule this market and to sell material depicted in the confiscated archives. This article not only indicates and analyses the cases identified in 2013 in the most 'reputable' auction houses, but also reconstructs and maps the paths by which these antiquities reached and circulated in the market.
Introduction: New Insights into the Antiquities Market
International Journal of Cultural Property
The Syrian civil war exacted a massive toll on the country's population, with hundreds of thousands of children, women, and men killed, injured, or forced to flee. Part and parcel of the human suffering is the widespread loss of artistic and historical materials-the deliberate and collateral destruction of artworks and monuments, mosques and marketplaces, books, artifacts, churches, synagogues, and archaeological sites. One aspect of this destruction, in particular, has generated vigorous debate among scholars, policymakers, and art market professionals: the intensive looting of archaeological sites by insurgent groups and their possible links to the antiquities trade. The war did not introduce site looting to the region, of course, and the antiquities trade did not endorse insurgent looting. But, for several reasons, the cultural loss from this war has attracted sustained media and scholarly attention. One important outcome of this attention is research investment. In the years since the world learned of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria's (ISIS) campaign of cultural destruction, considerable efforts have been made by scholars and market professionals to separate myth from fact by prioritizing reliable data to piece together the complex components of the Syrian artifact pipeline. These efforts have already borne fruit, as numerous recent publications attest. 1 Any attempt to situate the looting in the broader space of the art market, however, eventually hits the causal wall: does looting proliferate because the antiquities trade encourages it, even if inadvertently? In other words, is there something about the current structure and ethos of the trade that provides the conditions that are conducive to illegal excavation and the transfer of archaeological materials? How these questions get answered tells us about much more than one particular civil war; their answers-and the contentious grounds on which the questions are 212 Fiona Greenland posed at all-brings us into the landscape of long-standing ethical, scientific, legal, economic, and humanistic concerns around the ownership and transfer of cultural heritage. 2 The articles in this volume are situated in this landscape, using recent looting in the Middle East as a reference point but not limiting their cases to any one region, conflict, or object type. The origin of the current volume is a 2016 conference at the University of Chicago's Neubauer Collegium for Culture and Society, where we gathered to share ideas and findings about cultural destruction in conflict zones. That gathering made a point of bringing antiquities market professionals, archaeologists, and cultural policy experts to the same table. This was a priority of the organizers in order to establish collegiality and push beyond traditional institutional and ideational barriers. Through formal paper presentations and closeddoor discussions, participants frankly addressed weaknesses and opportunities in the existing paradigm. The structure of the conference explains why the articles in this volume are written from a range of institutional and intellectual vantage points. They do not all agree on causes or consequences. But all of the texts start from a position of recognition: recognition of the catastrophic loss of life and the need for rebuilding and protecting art works and archaeological materials that constitute the backbone of social life.
The themes expressed in most chapters of this book are remarkably similar: the pillage of archaeological sites and cultural institutions continues, and the antiquities market thrives. On the ground, data from field surveys clearly point to a growing problem of plunder, and the type of material appearing on the open art market correlates to the regions, even sites, that are consistently targeted. Our authors tease out the differences between looting and subsistence digging; the roles of source, transit, and market countries in the trade; the impacts of war, political agendas, and tourist development on cultural heritage; and the effectiveness of legislation in thwarting pillage and the illicit traffic of archaeological material. What most authors have been reluctant to explore is the root cause of exactly why pillage occurs. It is now more than thirty years since the world-awakening 1970 UNESCO Convention, and still the problem persists, and even grows worse. As a concluding chapter, we turn to the why question in order to investigate some of the complex issues that are critical for understanding and resolving the problem. Our analysis concentrates in particular on the ways in which collectors use archaeological heritage as symbolic capital to gain social status and prestige.