Illicit Antiquities
Research Centre
against the theft & traffic
of archaeology

Editorial

Augusta McMahon

Culture Without Context

Issue 2,
Spring 1998

The illicit trade in antiquities with regard to Turkey is a problem with two faces. In the first instance, Turkey is a 'source country', with an extraordinarily rich and varied cultural heritage. In the second instance, Turkey is geographically well-place to be a 'transit country', a pathway for items from neighbouring source countries of the Middle East travelling towards the purchasing countries of Europe.

Turkey has had tough antiquities laws in place since 1906 and in recent years in particular has worked consciously and consistently to repatriate illegally exported artefacts. Many of these efforts have led to success, either through legal settlements or by way of more informal resolutions, in which the American-Turkish Society has often been a useful partner. There have been several high-profile cases involving illegally exported Turkish artefacts, such as the Lydian Hoard, a group of gold and silver vessels and jewellery, wall paintings and statues. These objects were purchased by the Metropolitan Museum in new York over the course of 1966 to 1970 and were a source of controversy since their existence was first rumoured in 1970. The 'hoard' was proved to have come from a cluster of burials in western Turkey and was returned to Turkey in 1993 after a complex six-year legal case which was conceded by the Metropolitan Museum in New York before it could come to trial. For informed discussion of the Lydian Hoard particulars, and illegal trade in Turkish antiquities in general, the best source is Mr Özgen Acar, a Turkish journalist who has been involved with the issue for years (see, for instance, Acar & Mark Rose, 'Turkey's war on the illicit antiquities trade', Archaeology 48/2 (1995), 45-56).

The two aspects of source and transit trade intertwine, since modern national borders in the region do not correspond with cultural boundaries in the past. Potentially, an object which appears on the antiquities market in Turkey, or in Europe having arrived via Turkey, may have come from a site in Turkey or from a neighbouring country, and in the absence of documentation it may be very difficult to determine which. For example, several years ago, a regional museum in southeaster Turkey had bought a cylinder seal brought in by a local resident. Museum officials had not seen anything exactly like it, and details of where it had been found were murky. I looked at it and was surprised to see a distinctive scene of pairs of animals in combat, in a style pointing to manufacture in southern Mesopotamia (now southern Iraq) during the late Early Dynastic Period (c. 2,500 BC).

So, was this a seal which had been illegally excavated in Iraq and had found its was to Turkey? Most probably yes, given the scale of the illegal excavation problem in Iraq at present and the porosity of the Turkey-Iraq border. However, there are several other possibilities. The seal could have been manufactured in northern Mesopotamia (currently Iraq). So the seal may have been illegally excavated from a site in Syria and had slipped across the border to Turkey. To pursue this line further, the seal could have been made at a very northern Mesopotamian site, this time in southeastern Turkey, in a southern Mesopotamian style; in this case it would be unique, but this is not out of the realm of possibility.

But yet another possibility exists. Assuming the seal was manufactured in southern Iraq, it may still have arrived at a site in Turkey at some time in the distant past, either directly carried by its original owner or by way of a series of exchanges and multiple owner. This movement may have happened either shortly after the seal's manufacture or even centuries later (given that cylinder seals could have 'heirloom' status in the past). So perhaps the seal did come from a site in Turkey, despite its style pointing to a different area of origin. In this case, although it may have been illegally excavated, it would not in fact have been illegally exported. And the further possibility exists that it it had been accidentally excavated from a site in Turkey (i.e. in the course of agricultural or construction work), it would actually have arrived in the best possible context, having been delivered to the local museum.

So we are left with a confusing situation. How would one even go about beginning to determine rightful ownership and original provenance in such a case? The impossibility of such a task is overwhelming. And a cynical, or lazy, voice asks, why should we bother? Although of good quality, there actually was nothing very exotic about the seal itself. There are literally dozens of Early Dynastic cylinder seals in similar style, with similar scenes, already known from excavations and in museum collections. It did not have an inscription or any other unique features. It would not make any impact on an art historically-based analysis of Mesopotamian culture. But its latent important lies in its context, now lost forever. If it came from a site in southern Iraq, this is interesting but would probably not in fact change our reconstruction of the past. If it came from site in Syria or northern Iraq, this is more interesting, and it could slightly alter our perception of the interaction between southern and northern Mesopotamia, depending upon the specific site involved. But if it came from a site in Turkey, there could be a much greater impact upon our concept of this interaction, its extent and its organisation. The date of the context, and how much that differed from the probable date of manufacture, would have also been an intriguing avenue to follow.

Now, decontextualised, the cylinder seal remains a beautiful object, an artefact which can still rightly serve as a 'cultural ambassador', speaking volumes about the artistic genius and symbolic world of a particular cultural group. It is slightly comforting to think that residents of southeast Turkey may have the opportunity to see it in the museum, since it will be unique in that context and can serve as a valuable educational tool. But the vitally important, yet intangible, information it once held about other social and economic aspects is lost. The individual who used the seal and the location and circumstances in which he or she did so have completely vanished. And the object without its history is far less eloquent.

First posted October 1998; Page design updated September 2006