|
Illicit Antiquities |
The illicit antiquities trade: an analysis of current antiquities looting in IsraelOrly Blum |
|
|
The rich archaeological heritage of Israel is being constantly eroded by illegal excavations carried out to meet an escalating demand for antiquities. The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA, the principal organization in Israel with responsibility for antiquities1 ) has a computerized list of over 14,000 sites (Reich 1998), but since 1967 more than 11,000 of these sites within the pre-1967 borders (mostly tombs) have been robbed. More than 6000 are in the foothills of Judea. The exact number of sites robbed since 1967 in the occupied territories is unknown, but it is in the thousands (Ilan et al. 1989). This destruction has given rise to a debate within Israel between the IAA and the dealers’ community. The IAA wants to change the law which currently permits antiquities trading — it believes that if the antiquities trade is outlawed then dealers will no longer be able to operate in Israel and theft from archaeological sites will stop.The dealers’ lobby, however, maintains that if such a law is passed, then the antiquities trade will simply continue underground, as happens in other Mediterranean countries where it is forbidden, such as Egypt, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Jordan. In 1985 the IAA established the Theft Prevention Unit whose duty is to prevent thefts from archaeological sites and to supervise commerce in antiquities. The Theft Prevention Unit has the power to conduct searches and make arrests, and also to investigate any suspicious business operations in the antiquities field. In 1995 the Unit caught 144 people illegally digging on ancient sites (Ya’akovi 1999). The IAA also has the authority to decide who will, or will not, be licensed to trade in antiquities (a licence is required under Article 15 of the 1978 Antiquities Law). In the state of Israel there are 75 licensed dealers with a combined annual turnover of about $5 million. The Antiquities Law implemented in 1978 effectively ‘nationalized’ antiquities in order to protect them. Article 2(c) states that ‘Where an antiquity is discovered or found in Israel after the coming into force of this law, it shall within borders fixed by the Director [of Antiquities] become the property of the State’. But this creates a paradox: on the one hand the sale and collecting of antiquities is allowed almost without restriction, while on the other all antiquities that have been discovered in Israel since 1978 are the property of the State. Therefore, licensed excavations cannot be a source of goods for antiquities dealers, who claim that in consequence they are obliged to purchase antiquities from illicit excavations. This has led, in turn, to the IAA declaring that dealers are encouraging antiquities theft and that therefore the trade should be forbidden. Another paradox that should be mentioned is that Israel’s Ministry of Tourism allows its seal of approval to be placed in the windows of the authorized antiquities shops despite the claim of the IAA that a large part of the material sold there comes from illegal excavations (Ilan et al. 1989). While antiquities dealing in Israel is legal, it is not completely unregulated, and there are certain prohibitions on the export of antiquities. According to the 1978 Antiquities Law:
Nevertheless, compared to the strict export laws of other Mediterranean countries the Israeli regime is tolerant and antiquities can easily be exported. Anyone who contravenes this export regulation, however, will be liable to imprisonment for a term of six months or pay a fine of 30,000 pounds. The market playersa) Thieves Article 9(a) of the 1978 Antiquities Law states that: ‘No person shall dig on any land, or otherwise search, for antiquities, including the use of a metal detector, or gather antiquities, unless he has obtained a license to do so from the Director…’. Antiquities criminals can be divided to two groups. The first and largest group are from the economically depressed villages in the West Bank and occupied territories. The IAA discloses that 99 per cent of thieves are shepherds and other local inhabitants from villages close to ancient sites. There are two reasons for this: the economic deprivation of the villagers and poor law enforcement. The second group of criminals are Israeli and foreign citizens who act as intermediaries or middlemen. Since the Israeli occupation in 1967 the economies of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank have become extremely reliant upon jobs in Israel. When the Intifada began in 1987 these jobs became less secure because of strikes called by the Palestinian leaders and curfews imposed by Israel. There was an inevitable rise in the level of unemployment among Palestinians, exacerbated by Israeli employment of foreigners to replace Palestinians. Thus the illicit trade in antiquities thrives, due mainly to the economic distress of Palestinian citizens. On the 14 December 2000 the IAA reported that before the Intifada only 2 sites were illegally excavated a month but that since then the number has risen to over 16 sites (Golan 2000). This statistic demonstrates that antiquities thieves become have more active since economic conditions have deteriorated. Illegally excavated objects are transferred to middlemen. They have good contacts in Palestinian villages and purchase items often for very little money, and always in cash (Golan 2000). These antiquities are then sold to legitimate dealers. Middlemen are often Israeli or foreign citizens. The IAA acts against both thieves and middlemen — approximately 70–100 antiquities offenders are caught each year (Golan 2000). Article 37(a) of the 1978 Antiquities Law states that a person who injures or defaces any antiquity or archaeological site is liable to imprisonment for the term of three years or a fine of 150,000 pounds. The prison sentence is intended to deter and prevent pillaging though jail terms are rare. If it is impossible to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that robbers have actually plundered artefacts they will be released. The police do not help the IAA, and dealing with complaints about the destruction of sites or antiquities theft are not priorities. The lack of support from Israeli law-enforcement agencies is probably due to their poor awareness of the importance of the archaeological heritage. b) Dealers Article 15 of the 1978 Antiquities Law states that a dealer can sell artefacts only if he is in possession of a license from the Director of Antiquities. Every licensed dealer has to keep a list of stock and register it annually when renewing his license (Ya’akovi 1999), although the IAA suspects that dealers replace every object sold with a similar one, which receives the same stock number (Pinto 1999). This is probably to circumvent the IAA regulations concerning artefacts but might also be to evade income tax requirements. Legitimate dealers claim that most of their antiquities come from private collections and are purchased legally — in other words, from collections which were built up before 1978 when it was still legal to excavate on private property and collect artefacts from the surface (Maza 1990). It is difficult to prove otherwise as investigating the source of antiquities makes large demands on available resources. But it is hard to believe that the 100,000 artefacts that leave Israel each year all come from pre-1978 inventories. c) Collectors There are different types of collectors, and some exert a strong influence on the political decision-making process insofar as it concerns the domestic antiquities trade. The first group of collectors is comprised of tourists who constitute 99 per cent of antiquities buyers. Many purchase a glass ornament, jar, coin or some other antiquity in one of the more than a hundred antiquities shops in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In particular demand are pottery and coins from the period of the Bar-Kochva revolt (the Second Jewish revolt against Rome) ad 132–135. Christian pilgrims seek objects from the Byzantine era, and the demand is greatest for items that are marked with a cross (O’Sullivan 2001). By and large tourists do not care about the provenance of an antiquity, their main interest is that the object is ‘old’. An IAA survey revealed that 80 per cent of people entering antiquities shops are tourists and that 67 per cent of those buy an antiquity (Ilan et al. 1989). However, the Intifada has severely reduced the merchandising of antiquities, as fewer tourists are now visiting Israel (Maza 1990). The second group of collectors are Israelis. Some are influential public figures who have exerted pressure on parliament not to change the current law, which permits trading in antiquities. In 1987 Teddy Kollek (an important antiquities collector, then mayor of Jerusalem and previously Chairman of the Israel Museum Jerusalem board of directors) stated in a letter addressed to the Minister of Education and Culture that prohibition of the antiquities trade would be absurd as the existence of legitimate sales galleries enables the IAA to supervise dealers and allows museums to purchase objects legally. Moreover, Mr Kollek argued that prohibition of the trade would drive it underground and that as a result most antiquities would then be smuggled abroad (Ya’akovi 1999). Teddy Kollek is not the only Israeli politician to have collected antiquities. Another was Moshe Dayan, the almost legendary general and former minister, who had an obsessive hunger for valuable archaeological finds.2 Dayan accumulated his extensive private collection through unauthorized and unscientific digs, using Israeli soldiers and army helicopters. While acting as Minister of Defence he blocked important anti-looting legislation. When the IAA discovered this, rather than arresting him, they seized most of his private collection and displayed it in the Israel Museum Jerusalem. Kollek and Dayan did a lot to prevent the establishment of laws aimed at safeguarding the national heritage, while at the same time protecting and increasing their own collections. These episodes raise important questions about the pressure that powerful individuals may bring to bear on the executive body and highlight conflicts that may occur between public and private interests in the archaeological heritage. Many other private collectors have voluntarily opened their collections to the public. In so doing, they have invited the public to share the cultural heritage of the country. This phenomenon encouraged individuals such as Nahman Avigad (1905–92) and Yigael Yadin (1917–84), both Israeli archaeologists and collectors of Israeli antiquities, to arrange for the publication (sometimes by themselves) of items in private collections. d) Museums Some influential curators at the Israel Museum Jerusalem and the Eretz Israel Museum in Tel-Aviv support the antiquities trade as it is presently constituted for the simple reason that it allows them to continue buying antiquities on the open market. Preventing such a trade would severely constrict the museums’ sources and would create a dependency on the IAA. Antiquities displayed in Israeli museums come from authorized and unauthorized excavations. The Israel Museum Jerusalem has an impressive department of Israeli antiquities, many of which have been lent or donated by the IAA, while others have been confiscated from robbers or from dealers. But the problem at hand is not whether a museum is entitled to acquire an artefact which has been looted from within the state of Israel and then confiscated, rather it is the attitude of the museum towards the continuation of a legal antiquities trade. If the IAA presumption that banning the antiquities trade would reduce the incidence of looting is correct, then by supporting the continuing existence of a legitimate antiquities trade influential voices within the museums world are encouraging the continuation of the looting. SolutionsThe museums and the IAA are both seeking to reduce the plunder of archaeological sites, but have different views as to the best course of action. Would Israel control it more effectively by banning the trade or by maintaining or even increasing a legitimate and supervised trade? The IAA survey revealed that the majority of small antiquities such as coins, oil lamps and so on are bought by tourists. These artefacts represent, according to the survey, the majority of archaeological objects plundered from ancient sites. Therefore, outlawing the trade would make it impossible for dealers to sell their merchandise to tourists who are the most important market for antiquities and, as it will be less profitable, reduce the amount of plundering. Against this, the illegality of the antiquities trade might only escalate prices and lead to even higher profits for dealers and middlemen. Another objection to outlawing the trade is that it would go underground and the objects will be smuggled abroad. In other Mediterranean countries that have banned their antiquities trade the authorities are still struggling to contain looting. A counter proposal made by the pro-trade lobby is that the IAA should sell artefacts that have already been studied and documented and which at present are not exhibited to the public but are kept in storage. There is, however, a strong objection to this suggestion. According to the IAA over 100,000 artefacts are sold yearly. The Department of Antiquities has approximately 120,000 registered items, other than coins (Ilan et al. 1989). If the present volume of sales were maintained, the Department of Antiquities’ storerooms would be emptied within a year. There is a serious imbalance between the small supply of legitimate antiquities and a growing demand. The problem can only be solved by increasing the supply or by reducing the demand. The fact that it is legal to sell antiquities from illegal excavations raises many uncertainties about the preliminary source of those antiquities. Consideration should be given to relaxing the law which ‘nationalizes’ each antiquity found. Notes
References
First posted June 2003; Page design updated September 2006 |
