|
Illicit Antiquities |
EditorialNeil BrodieMcDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
|
|
|
In this issue Orly Blum presents an analysis of antiquities looting in Israel and considers solutions from the perspective of supply and demand. It is clear, however, that the problem there is badly exacerbated by the deteriorating political situation, as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, to name only two other countries. The UNESCO decision to back the non-commercial Swiss-based Afghan Museum in Exile provides a positive response to the cultural destruction that takes place in such war zones, and also in this issue, Atle Omland and Christopher Prescott argue that the Schøyen collection of Buddhist manuscripts, currently in Norway, would find a welcome home there. There is clearly a need for similar institutions, and UNESCO might think to establish or support a non-commercial repository for the large numbers of inscribed clay tablets that are currently flooding the market and derived in all probability from Iraq since the end of the Gulf War. Transparency is a concept that many antiquities dealers and collectors and some museums too seem to have a problem with, and now they have been joined by the British Government. On 7 October the Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced that it had reached agreement with the US company Odyssey Marine Explor-ation to ‘conduct further archaeological exploration’ of the wreck of the seventeenth-century warship HMS Sussex which is believed to have foundered off the coast of Gibraltar during a severe storm in 1694. The MoD was keen to emphasize that the project ‘will be conducted under recognized and accepted methodologies’, though no details were provided, and that the partnership will extend to the ‘eventual conservation, publication, exhibition, marketing’ of artefacts. One day earlier Odyssey had also announced the partnership, again highlighting ‘the archaeological excavation and conservation of artifacts and cargo’. Both press releases also made low-key mention of the fact that the wreck might contain tons of gold coins. The relevance of this latter point becomes clear when the text of the agreement (available at www.shipwreck.net) is consulted. If what are euphemistically called ‘artefacts’ (surely gold coins) with a total monetary value of anything up to $45 million are recovered then sale proceeds will be split 20:80 in Odyssey’s favour; between $45 million and $500 million and the split will be 50:50; anything above $500 million and it will be 60:40 to the Government. The expedition is in fact a treasure hunt, and the MoD is under no illusions about this, despite the meretricious terminology of their press release. ‘The sea robbed us of our national wealth. For the best interests of the British taxpayers, I want to get it back’ said departmental official Geoff Reakes when interviewed by the Daily Telegraph (Adam Luscher, The Treasury’s ship comes in, Daily Telegraph, 13 October 2002). The MoD press release also states that the agreement is an important step ‘in the development of a "partnering" approach to deep sea archaeology’, which seems to imply that further treasure hunts are planned. This agreement does not seem to be in contravention of any British law, although it is certainly against the spirit of legislation such as the 1996 Treasure Act and the Valletta Convention on Protection of the Archaeological Heritage which was ratified by the UK in 1999. Much will depend upon standards of excavation and recovery, although at the present time details are sketchy. In 1998, when the search for HMS Sussex first got underway, with the codename Cambridge, it was widely reported that the expedition was a collaborative enterprise between Odyssey and the Royal Naval Museum in Portsmouth. The Museum was involved at that stage to advise on best practice, but has now ceased to be an active partner, while continuing to advise the MoD. The Odyssey press release does mention an archaeological report that has been prepared, although no details have been released. To clear up the confusion which surrounds the HMS Sussex project, it would help if the MoD would make public:
However, perhaps they are not in a position to do so. Article 12 of the agreement, entitled ‘Confidentiality’, states that ‘The agreement contains a confidentiality clause governing the release of information concerning the Agreement and all documents relating to its execution’. So much for transparency. It is a shame that the HMS Sussex agreement clouds what would otherwise be a good year for the British Government which in August finally signed up to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, which came into effect on 1 November. Britain has been joined by Japan where the Convention will come into effect in December 2002, and also by Sweden where the decision to ratify was announced in October. Albania and Barbados acceded earlier this year, Switzerland looks set to join in 2003, with Denmark to follow. The Convention is obviously enjoying a new lease of life, not least perhaps because of its proactive implementation in the United States as the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, which has demonstrated just how effective an instrument it may be when used judiciously but with force. Anyone who doubts its effectiveness should turn to page 16 of In the News where there are details of the newly created American Council for Cultural Policy which represents the interests of rich collectors and museums, and one of whose aims is to weaken the US implementation. It clearly has them worried. First posted June 2003; Page design updated September 2006 |
