|
Illicit Antiquities
|
Site looting and the illicit trade of archaeological objects in Andalusia, SpainSilvia Fernández Cacho & Leonardo García SanjuánAvenida de Miraflores 39, 1°D
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legal frameworkThe existence of a well-established legal deterrent to the looting of archaeological sites in Spain dates back only to 1985, when the Ley del Patrimonio Histórico Español (Law of the Spanish Historical Heritage) was promulgated. This piece of legislation defines rather generally the plundering of an archaeological site as 'any action or omission putting at risk any of the properties that integrate the Spanish Historical Heritage' (Art. 3). It does not make, therefore, any particular distinction between looting driven by an interest in illicit trade or damage caused to an archaeological site by any other activity (building developments etc.). An interesting contribution of this definition was the introduction, for the first time, of the notion that an omission of action may be potentially as damaging (and as illegal) as a direct action of looting (Querol & Martínez 1996, 247). Since the transfer in the early 1980s of all responsibilities in cultural resource management from the Spanish central government to the regional authorities, the relevant law in Andalusia has been the Ley de Patrimonio Histórico de Andalucía (Law of the Historical Heritage of Andalusia), passed by the regional parliament in July 1991. Compared to the 1985 national law, this regional law does not broaden any further the definition of the notion of looting. It does, however, establish a list of infringements hierarchically ordered as 'very serious, serious, or less serious'. Among the 'very serious' infractions are those causing irreversible damage to cultural properties recorded in the general catalogue of the Andalusian heritage. This general catalogue is proposed in Art. 111 as an essential tool for heritage protection. The rate of inclusion of the regional archaeological resources within this protected list is, however, quite slow, and currently it contains only 8.5 per cent of all archaeological sites documented in the region. Infringements such as 'the utilisation of metal-detecting devices without authorisation' (Art. 133) are regarded as 'less serious', involving fines of up to 10 million ptas. (approx. 60,000 Euros) 'but in any case never less than the profit made by the offender as a result of his/her infraction' (Art.177). The specific problem of the 'seriousness' of the damage caused to the archaeological record by the offender had not been addressed as such by the 1985 Spanish Heritage law and, therefore, the Andalusian bill represented a major conceptual advance. The application of these legal precepts, however, remains problematical insofar as judges have consistently demanded evidence of the offenders being caught in flagranti (Rodríguez 2000, 39). Other problems with the implementation of the protective measures contemplated in the 1991 Andalusian Heritage law have derived from the inability and/or lack of interest of town councils to engage in a more pro-active role as agencies of heritage protection, as explicitly stated by the law. A good example is the city council of the small town of Quéntar (Granada: see Fig. 1), which in August 1997 complained bitterly in the media of the constant damage caused by looters (some locals among them) to the rich archaeological heritage of its municipality. This council lacked the resources (staff, funding) to prevent archaeological looting as was their wish (Ideal August 22nd 1997). In other, more unfortunate cases, city councils treating their archaeological heritage as a second- or third-rate priority within their development programmes have caused serious problems to the conservation of archaeological sites. This was for example the case of the municipality of Rincón de La Victoria (Málaga: Fig. 1), which in April 1995 went ahead with the construction of 600 new dwellings in the vicinity of Cueva del Tesoro, an archaeological site catalogued as Bien de Interés Cultural (a legal category that grants additional planning and administrative protection to sites of special value), thus causing a serious conflict with the regional cultural authorities (El País April 27th 1995).
Looting in numbers and casesData available from the ARQUEOS data base, developed and maintained by the Documentation Centre of the Andalusian Institute of the Historical Heritage (IAPH) (Fernández et al. 2000), suggest that at least 65.1 per cent of all archaeological sites documented in the region to date display some form of alteration derived from contemporary human activities (Table 1). This includes, of course, a wide range of industrial, agricultural and urban land uses. However, 14.2 per cent of sites (1805 sites) have been damaged by market-oriented plundering, which ranks no less than second among all causes of deterioration of the region's archaeological sites. Looting is only preceded by agricultural practices such as deep-ploughing and terracing, which affect 30.7 per cent of sites. The extent of the looting by province (Fig. 2) ranges from 11.1 per cent of all sites in Seville to 26.6 per cent in Granada. Nevertheless, since no systematic analysis of this problem has yet been carried out, these figures must be taken only as indicative - they probably underestimate the real overall effects of looting in the region.
According to available reports, damage caused by robbers and illegal amateur archaeologists seems mostly to affect the surface levels of sites. Only a small minority of sites are reported as completely destroyed or destroyed beyond 50 per cent of their deposits because of looting. This is, however, a rather small consolation considering that surface plundering - which causes irreversible damage to the upper layers of the stratigraphy - may affect up to almost a third of all sites in some provinces. Figure 2
Some recent examples of site looting in Andalusia suggest that there is a wide range of situations and circumstances that may lead to an archaeological site being partly destroyed by individuals seeking some kind of profit. First, there is the more or less occasional looting caused by people not necessarily involved in organized crime. A rather bizarre case occurred in July 1998 in Algeciras (Cádiz: Fig. 1) when the skull of a child of late-medieval date that had been found in an urban rescue excavation was stolen, probably by a local aficionado, and never found again (El País July 11th 1988). In a more lucky instance (and which in fact could hardly be described as looting) in October 1999 the SEPRONA (Service for the Protection of Nature) branch of the Guardia Civil recovered two invaluable Phoenician statuettes that a Huelva fisherman had found off the coast thirty years ago. Unaware of their potential economic value, the man had kept both bronzes in his house as good-luck tokens (Fig. 3) (Huelva Información October 20th 1999; Odiel Información October 20th 1999; El País October 20th 1999; ABC October 20th 1999).
A much more serious case (which immediately reached the front page of most local and regional newspapers) took place in August 1997 when the police arrested three people who were sighted destroying the Los Nogales bridge, near Córdoba (Diario De Córdoba August 22nd, 23rd, 24th & 25th 1997; El Correo De Andalucía August 23rd & 24th 1997; El País August 22nd, 23rd & 24th 1997; Diario 16 August 24th 1997; ABC August 23rd & 24th 1997; El Mundo August 22nd & 23rd 1997). This bridge is of outstanding importance and was originally constructed as part of the communication network associated with Medina Azahara, the city built by the Cordovan Caliph Abd al-Rahman III in the tenth century AD. Together with the city, the bridge enjoys the status of Bien de Interes Cultural. In this case, the only purpose of the looters was to supply themselves with cheap stone masonry for the refurbishment of their nearby house. Although they were arrested halfway through the job, the damage caused to the bridge affected 20 per cent of its structure. Paradoxically, the cost of the equivalent stone masonry on the market was estimated in 30,000 ptas (c. 180 Euros), way below the 14 million ptas (c. 84,000 Euros) subsequently budgeted for the restoration of the bridge. Secondly, a more frequent plundering scenario derives from the systematic activities of individuals or groups of individuals who target archaeological sites as a more or less habitual way of earning a living, or simply to obtain additional income and benefits. In July 1994, a resident of the town of Osuna (Sevilla) was arrested and charged with heritage destruction and illicit trafficking of archaeological objects, of which more than 700 were found in his home, including coins, polished stone axes, bronze artefacts, pottery and architectural elements such as capitals (El País July 28th 1994). A similar much-publicized case occurred in February 1995, when a man from San Fernando (Cádiz) was found guilty of systematic and long-term plundering of underwater archaeological sites and charged with a fine of 17 million ptas (c. 102,000 Euros). The police had discovered more than 900 archaeological objects in his home, including amphorae, fragments of sculptures and remains of shipwrecks. The man has ever since claimed his innocence and even defined himself as a 'people's heritage curator' (Diario De Cadiz April 15th 2000). But his legal battle against the guilty verdict ended when, in a landmark resolution, his appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected on the grounds that 'his collection of archaeological objects largely exceeded what could be expected from a limited series of random finds resulting from a rightful interest in the Past . . .' (El País March 18th 1999). Thirdly, a higher level of sophistication and organization in the looting of Andalusian archaeological sites has been recently revealed. In September 1999, and after a long investigation called Operación Trajano, the SEPRONA uncovered an internet-based ring for the auctioning of antiquities looted from Andalusian archaeological sites (El País September 26th 1999; El Mundo September 25th & 26th 1999; Sevilla Información September 26th 1999; ABC September 26th 1999; Huelva Información September 26th 1999; Odiel Información September 26th 1999). These internet-based auctions had been held since 1997 from a web site based in San José (California, US) and involved clients from Australia, France, Germany, Canada and Portugal. Three people were arrested and charged in Sevilla and more than 9000 archaeological objects (including c. 5000 coins) were recovered (Figs. 4 & 5). The officers also found sophisticated computer equipment, detailed maps of archaeological sites and high-tech metal detectors. The revelations of this case caused great concern in the local and regional authorities responsible for cultural resource management for they have indeed exposed a new generation of more efficiently organized local looters (Rodríguez 2000). These new generation looters do not operate just locally, but aim their activities at profitable international markets. According to the Guardia Civil reports, up to 80 or 90 per cent of antiquities looted in Andalusia end up in the US, UK and Japan (Diario de Cádiz April 15th 2000).
The war against looting: information, education and suppressionThe war against the looting of archaeological sites in Andalusia is being fought on three different but equally crucial fronts. The first one is the technical control of the archaeological resources, their location, status and characteristics. On this front, the administration has implemented over the last five years more efficient means to manage, process, update and evaluate the information pertaining to the regional inventory of archaeological sites. This has to some extent involved a more comprehensive archaeological coverage of the territory and, therefore, an enhanced control of the archaeological resources. But more importantly, it has involved the development of new systems to handle the information, with a move from a strictly paper-based system to a GIS-based one (Amores et al. 1999; 2000; Fernández et al. forthcoming), thus allowing better procedures of data transfer towards those public and private organizations seeking to develop building plans. However, large portions of the regional territory still remain poorly surveyed, and, in the face of rapidly changing patterns of land use, some mechanisms of protection do not seem to work efficiently in stopping the destruction of sites. Hence, further work is badly needed to grant a minimum level of control for all archaeological sites. The second is, most crucially, educational in nature. Little or no success in the struggle against looting can be expected without public awareness of the finite and exhaustible nature of the archaeological resources as a common heritage and a source of economic development. The situation in Andalusia is evolving quickly, with increasing interest from the written media and the public and a much higher degree of involvement and participation of local authorities in the dissemination of the archaeological heritage. However, positive as this growth in public awareness may be, it still remains largely insufficient. This is particularly noticeable in the most influential communication medium, TV. In Andalusia, the regional public TV channel has opted for an unchallenged focus on an array of popular folkloric and religious traditions that, according to the official jargon, represent the principles of Andalusian cultural identity. Strangely, the archaeological and historical heritages have so far had no role to play in the construction of this cultural identity. Successful British productions such as Time Team or Meet the Ancestors, that have contributed so much to rise public awareness about the need to preserve the heritage legacy in the United Kingdom, are simply unheard of among Spanish TV channels. In fact, as recent reviews have shown, archaeology as such is poorly represented (or not represented at all) on Spanish television at large (Ruiz 1996, 96). The third front in the battle against looting is, obviously, in the hands of the security forces, namely the National Police and Guardia Civil. Since its creation in 1989 as a unit within the Guardia Civil, the SEPRONA has carried out an increasing number of operations against site looting and illicit trade of antiquities (VVAA 2000). Some spectacular cases, like the recovery of the stolen Medieval codex Beato de Liébana received extensive media coverage throughout Spain (Cortés 1997, 20-22). Interestingly, training and specialization courses in cultural heritage matters have proven extremely successful and highly demanded among the Guardia Civil agents, and not only among those deployed in SEPRONA (El País December 16th 1996). But more to the point of this paper, between 1990 and 1996 the number of operations carried out by SEPRONA at a national level has multiplied fivefold, showing increasing efficiency in the struggle against heritage-related crimes. In Andalusia, this can be exemplified in the province of Sevilla (Fig. 6) where the number of reports investigated has in four years multiplied almost tenfold. Apart from the operations mentioned above, data for 1999 show a total number of 275 reports being investigated in the region (although only 7 were criminal in nature), which represents a total 59.2 per cent of the entire country (Table 2). Interestingly, Andalusia covers about one third of Spanish territory, supporting about 21 per cent of the country's population, which evidently means there must be factors other than merely size or demography to account for that significantly higher proportion of looting reports. Table 2
Figure 6 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
