A few days ago the gold vial which a German antiquity dealer [ancient coin auction house Hirsch Nachfolger] claims (but has not demonstrated) came from "Troy" and which German expert Michel Muller-Karpe says has most likely been looted from Ur in Iraq has been handed over to a government-appointed evaluator. The future destination of this object will be determined by what the evaluator decides. The topic has received some media attention in Germany. English-speaking readers can find an interesting report by Martin Beutler “Looted treasures from Iraq on sale in Germany” in the first 7.05 minutes of this video... The attached forum asks "should the trade in all artefacts of unclear origins be banned [or is this already a lost cause]?”
The video features a number of cameo interviews from both sides of the issue. Michael Muller Karpe is a key figure:
"the archaeologist from Mainz is convinced that most of the antiquities on offer in auction catalogues are stolen, their origins are often not made clear; "They are simply labelled Mesopotamia, or Babylonia or Assyria. Legally obtained artefacts have a specific site of origin, with illegal objects, the source isn't mentioned for a good reason".There is a spokesman from the Iraqi embassy (note what he has on the shelf behind him) expressing hope that the situation over this item can be resolved amicably by diplomatically acceptable means.
There is an appearance from Daniel Gerlach, an orientalist from Berlin, he has been looking into the trafficking of antiquities and identifies Germany as a place where the trail breks off due to the lack of transparency in the market. He says “The authorities really need to change the way they think […] sometimes I get the impression that politically the aim is to keep public attention away from this issue”. I would say that is a fair assessment of the situation too in other 'no-questions-asked antiquity'-hungry 'market' countries, including the UK and the US.
Astrid Muller Katzenburg is an attorney for the Association of German Antique Dealers. As is the wont of lawyers serving the trade she comes out with the same old arguments we hear from the whole pro-collecting lobby, that dealers want to "preserve works of art" taken from archaeological contexts (for which rthey have an "affinity") and denies the market is as profitable as some preservationists estimate. She also denies that Germany is a major market for stolen Iraqi artefacts (where have we heard that before?). While she castigates opponents of the no-questions-asked trade as not applying "logical arguments", she is depicted by this report as not however answering the point about the trade in illicit items and the lack of transparency of the market.
The final word however belongs to Muller-Karpe:
"In Germany, Hehlerei [fencing of stolen goods] is a punishable offence. If you buy a stolen car radio you are punished, but if you buy a stolen cylinder seal, or clay tablet, you are not charged- you are celebrated as fostering science when you publicly exhibit the stolen item. That's just not right".
So far the German government has on the whole been dragging its feet over taking action against the no-questions-asked trade in illegally obtained portable antiquities across and within its borders, does this mean that the German government and people agree or disagree that it's "just not right" to trade in them?
No comments:
Post a Comment