|
Culture Without Context
Issue 7,
Autumn 2000
The value of the trade and
Cultura
Internet antiquities auctions
Mysterious Achaemenid and Sassanian silver and gold
UK Select Committe report
Italian database |
- The value of the trade in antiquities worldwide is a matter for trade denial,
academic counter-denial, media speculation, government enquiry, and even the occasional
quantitative study. Auction results, of course, are on public record. Sotheby’s New
York March 2000 sale of Indian and Southeast Asian ‘Art’ for instance realized
just over $6 million, while three months earlier their sale of Antiquities and Islamic Art
raised slightly above $4 million. It is what goes on outside the auction rooms that
interests archaeologists, however, the value of what is termed the ‘invisible
trade’ — although one suspects it is not so much invisible as hidden from the
eyes of those who show an unwelcome, because not entirely commercial, interest. Although
it is often rumoured that big deals go on out of sight, it is only very rarely that
high-value lots are seen in public. One thinks for instance of the Sevso treasure, bought
privately over a period of years, and now hoped to be worth about £40 million. At the
October Cultura antiques fair in Basel another ‘treasure’ broke cover as
David Bernstein offered a ten kilogram cache of Pre-Columbian gold for $3.5 million. Not
up to Sevso standard perhaps, but a tidy sum nevertheless and one that Christie’s or
Bonhams would be happy to see change hands at one of their London sales.
Cultura was in its second year, with 73 exhibitors, the majority of them dealing
in antiquities. All objects above a certain price were passed through the Art Loss
Register, thus ensuring the ‘highest possible standard of diligence’ according
to Peter Blome, the Director of the Basel Museum of Ancient Art, writing in an advertising
feature of the International Herald Tribune (October 14–15 2000). He went on
to reassure those readers whose pockets did not quite run to Bernstein’s gold that
nonetheless there were plenty of objects available to satisfy the more modest budget.
Whether these low-value objects were searched on the Register isn’t clear — one
suspects not. In any event, at the risk of boring our more informed readers, the Art Loss
Register cannot (and does not claim to) contain details of antiquities which have been
excavated without record and smuggled without trace. Data bases are invaluable in the
fight against art theft, but as a defence against the circulation of illicit antiquities
they are of only limited use — a necessary but not sufficient check.
In his advertising piece Professor Blome, who is a member of the board of
Cultura,
was also keen to defend the fair, arguing that the trade saves for posterity many objects
that would otherwise have been lost. Hardly an original observation this, but his stance
is a brave — some might say rash — one for a museum director. The role of
academic and other cultural institutions in helping to legitimize the illicit trade in
antiquities has been exposed often enough in the past, usually to the embarrassment of
those involved. One can only presume that by lending his name and professional reputation
to this commercial enterprise he is confident of its total legitimacy; Culture Without
Context hopes his confidence is not betrayed by those he seeks to support.
- Antiquities
Fairs are seen by some to be the way of the future, allowing dealers to dispense with the
costly overhead of a showroom, while at the same time providing them with the opportunity
to meet a larger and more diverse clientele. For others, though, the future lies with eBay
and similar internet auction sites. At the time of writing there were on eBay over 3000
antiquities on offer, of various qualities, ranging from the rare to the replica. A
typical piece is a Babalonian [sic] cylinder seal, claimed to be worth between
$2500–$3000, and authenticated by Wilfred Lambert, although the date of
authentication is not known. EBay is in trouble in the US over the possible sale of fakes
and has received letters from the major archaeological organizations expressing their
concern that eBay might be used to market illicit antiquities (see In the News p. 12).
Their concern is justified. There are huge quantities of Roman coins for sale on eBay
described as being from an area ‘north of Greece’ or, sometimes — more
accurately — ‘Bulgaria’. It is not surprising then to discover that two
illegal shipments of coins from Bulgaria — over 20,000 in total — have recently
been intercepted at Sofia and London (see In the News). Also, in this issue Cacho and
Sanjuán report on a smuggling ring that had been marketing looted antiquities from
Andalusia on a ‘web site based in San José, California’.
- Talk
of big money deals and Wilfred Lambert brings to mind the mysterious Achaemenid and
Sassanian silver and gold seized by New York police in 1986. Authenticated by Lambert and
insured for $18 million, its owner — London-based dealer Houshang Mahboubian —
had arranged for its shipment from Zurich to New York where he had conspired with
Nedjatollah Sakhai to bring about its theft, presumably in order to collect on the
insurance. At the 1987 trial three expert witnesses argued that a large part of the
material was fake, but Lambert stood by his original claim of authenticity. The pre-Zurich
ownership history of the material does not seem to have been discussed, but, if known,
could have spared the jury the discomfort of sitting through four expert testimonies.
- In October
1999 the Select Committee of the United Kingdom’s Department for
Culture, Media and Sport announced an inquiry into the return and illicit trade of
cultural property. Select Committees have no authority to legislate and cannot determine
Government policy, they can however act as ‘lightning rods’ for controversial
issues by attracting and synthesizing a diverse range of opinions, and are able to make
recommendations which may influence Government policy. The Culture, Media and Sport
Committee Inquiry into Cultural Property: the Return and Illicit Trade received 88 written
depositions and took oral evidence from 22 individuals or organizations. It was concerned
with two issues. First was that of the present-day illicit trade in cultural property: its
nature and scale. Second, claims for restitution made against cultural property presently
curated within UK museums. Its recommendations as regards the illicit trade were:
- That a clear system for recording the ownership history of a cultural object, linked
directly to the capacity to conduct a legitimate transaction, would be an extremely
important tool in tackling the illicit trade in cultural property and is therefore
desirable in principle. However, we have received persuasive evidence that a compulsory
‘log book’ providing such a record would face many difficulties, some of them
probably insuperable, and we have concluded reluctantly that such a compulsory ‘log
book’ would not represent a practical way forward. However, where organizations feel
that they can establish some sort of voluntary ‘log book’ within their own
resources this would be very much welcomed.
- That the Home Office make a public commitment in the course of this year to establishing
a national data base of stolen cultural property and cultural property exported against
the laws of countries concerned under national police control. The Home Office should also
seek to take forward detailed discussions with the police service, the insurance industry,
the art market and private data base operators about the development of an open system
which can meet the needs and draw upon the skills and funds of the private sector.
Finally, the Home Office should liase closely with other countries to ensure that any
national development is compatible with the wider international development of a data base
of stolen and illegally exported cultural property.
- That no changes be made to the United Kingdom’s current controls on the export of
cultural property.
- That the Government introduce legislation creating a criminal offence of trading in
cultural property in designated categories from designated countries which has been stolen
or illicitly excavated or illegally exported from those countries after the entry into
force of the legislation, with a defence in law based on the exercise of due diligence as
defined in that legislation.
- That the United Kingdom sign the 1995 Unidroit Convention and that the Government bring
forward legislation to give effect to its provisions and facilitate early ratification.
- Assuming that the two previous recommendations are implemented, it is not recommended
that the United Kingdom become a party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention.
The Government response to these recommendations (published in October 2000) was
necessarily circumspect as it has set up its own advisory panel on the illicit trade to
review both legislative and non-legislative options for action, which will take the Select
Committees recommendations into account, and which has been asked to report to the
Government before the end of November 2000, at which time the Government will then make a
further response to the Select Committee.
In Italy, the Comando Carabinieri has set up a web site with
photographs of over six hundred stolen archaeological objects. It can be found at
www.carabinieri.it/tpa/tpa.asp
First posted March 2001; Page
design updated September 2006 |
