|
Illicit Antiquities |
EditorialAugusta McMahon |
|
|
The Near Eastern Project, under the umbrella of IARC, will concentrate on acquiring and disseminating information on the illicitly excavated and/or stolen antiquities of the Middle East. The international trade in these items has increased over the last few decades owing to an increased appreciation for Near Eastern antiquities and owing to the disruption caused by various civil and international conflicts; and it was therefore thought appropriate for IARC to begin its programme by concentrating on this area. This newsletter will devote each issue to a single country of the Middle East, highlighting the particular difficulties facing that country with regard to the problem of illicit antiquities. In addition, the newsletter will be reporting on wider legal issues involved in antiquities trade, governmental responses, and important illicit objects from other countries, as the need and opportunity arises. Given that the recovery rate for stolen and illegally exported, yet eminently recognizable, 'fine art' works is only in the range of 5-10 per cent worldwide, one might legitimately ask why we are expending energy in this direction on behalf of antiquities. Rates of recovery for stolen items increase in proportion to the value of the object and its recognisability - these making it more likely on the one hand that their resale will be noticed and on the other hand that prior ownership can be proven immediately. It is paradoxically regrettable that prices for Near Eastern antiquities are relatively low, and their degree of recognisability is also frequently low. This lack of recognisability is to some extent inherent in the objects themselves; it is compounded by the lack of resources in many Middle Eastern museums for the intensive documentation of objects necessary for their easy identification, and for the dissemination of this information should the items be stolen. Thus it may seem that compilation of a register of stolen and illegally exported Near Eastern antiquities and the attempted recognition and recovery of such artefacts could be considered time and energy thrown away. Any registry of stolen antiquities compiled by IARC may overlap with efforts of other groups (Art Loss Register, International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art, Scotland Yard Art and Antiquities Department etc.), but what IARC aims to provide is a linkage among those groups, national Antiquities Departments, the academic community, art insurers, and legitimate collectors and sellers of ancient art. We also plan to go beyond the recognition and recovery aspect and the hold up the trade in ancient art for scrutiny, hoping to provide innovative solutions to its inherent problems. It would be impossible and unfair to call for a complete halt to all trade in antiquities, given that many transactions is this area involve objects that were legitimately removed from their country of origin prior to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. But how to eradicate the damaging trade in illicitly excavated or illegally exported antiquities, without harming the market? The arguments of those who would justify the sale of illegally exported artefacts are ready to hand - primarily that one should not blame the art market and those operating within it for the trade, but the countries of origin themselves, which do not care to or cannot control access to their own cultural property. Our response to this is to recount the constraints on the antiquities departments in most course countries; they often simply do not have the money or staff to properly police sites nor to adequately record the contents of their museums. Laws against illegal excavation and exportation exist in every country of the Middle East, but regrettably, although the will exists it is too often under-supported. Another prevailing attitude is that purchase of stolen artefacts allows them to be conserved, appreciated, and saved from destruction or oblivion - this is a trickier problem. Our answer stresses that the objects lose value drastically when their context is not known - without the association of a site, a date, an original owner or creator, the significance of the object is greatly reduced. We must respond to the idea that active promotion of legal trade in antiquities will eradicate the demand for illegally excavated and exported objects. In theory, source countries could sell off 'surplus' or duplicate items, supplying the international demand for antiquities while, again theoretically, reducing the likelihood of illegal excavations and exports. The International Cultural Property Society, through its publication the International Journal of Cultural Property, has often promoted this avenue and has some quite persuasive arguments for it. On the altruistic side, there is the fact that expanded legalised trade would serve as a form of cultural exchange, introducing ancient objects to a wider range of people and creating a greater sense of appreciation for ancient art. While the degree of success this aspect would have may be debatable, on a practical level, it is certainly true that most museums in the Middle East art full of well-excavated and already well-recorded objects which the museums have no space to exhibit, and which many museums and collectors in other countries would be happy to own, have the space to exhibit and, most importantly, have the money to pay for. First posted October 1998; Page design updated September 2006 |
