Friday 7 May 2010

Debating Barriers of Bubbles

.
We have all seen the unseemly fracas as dealers in one or another type of dugup artefact imported in bulk into the US are trying desperately not to get them written on a piece of paper. Maybe they will, maybe they will not, it is all in the hands of the State Department and whether the US can be bothered to help stem the global haemorrhage of clandestinely dugup collectables onto the international market, in which today the US is a major player.

Watching this spectacle we should not ignore the basic fact that what is being discussed in the US is how to make a barrier of bubbles. As I said here last month:

We have all read the The Medici Conspiracy, followed the later developments and then the sorry spectacle of humiliated US museums sending stuff back to Italy. Then there was the Sisto case last year. Yes, the US takes the moral highground and gives a lot of stuff back. Hip hip hooray…. But let us note one important fact omitted in all the jubilant press releases how wonderful the US is being. Every single one of those objects (and probably much else not detected yet) passed through US customs INTO the US without a hitch.

whether or not an MOU with Italy is extended is really a matter of putting in place a "feelgood" law. The US can point to it and say "see, we are doing something".

If the truth were told the effectiveness of any MOU is only as good as the vigilance of the US customs officers at the point of entry. If they are looking the other way when archaeological artefacts pass through, then an MOU does not make much of a difference. In fact, when the ACCG's Baltimore illegal Coin Import coins were stopped at Baltimore airport, it was (the ACCG admitted) because their representatives went along to the airport to tell customs that they should stop that package. Otherwise, it appears, they were afraid that the package could have gone through unchallenged and the ACCG would have to get some more coins sent to the US without the papers making them legal to try to force their case.

Whether or not the Italy MOU is extended, metal detectorists, pot-diggers and tomb-robbers destructively mining archaeological sites for saleable ancient collectables in adjacent Provence, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, Albania, and heavily looted Bulgaria (not to mention across the sea Tunesia, Algeria, Libya) can quite freely pop anything they like into a package to the US. Even if it is stopped, the US has no MOU with these countrties and has no obligation to enforce their export laws once the objects are on US soil. As any US dealers importing illegally exported archaeological finds in some quantities from such countries will know and would be counting on. Those small businesses openly selling items looted from sites in Bulgaria by the kilogramme like potatoes or individually included.

The US signed the UNESCO Convention, but the CPIA makes it clear that they did not do so with any intention to actually make it mean something. It was largely for show. After all the US really has very little in the way of ancient cultural material that collectors overseas are desperate to get their hands on as part of "their" ("internationalist") heritage. There is not a huge market for Native American pots and Anasazi menstrual pads over here in Europe, not comparable to that in dugup Roman coins and Greek vases over there. Probably the US ruling elite is not actually too interested in stopping "native stuff" being exported anyway, it is not after all "their" cultural heritage. The US therefore has no real interest in mutual enforcement of import-export regulations for cultural property with foreign countries unless it has some propaganda or political role to play in US forfeign affairs.

All this ignores the fact that - signatory of the UNESCO Convention or not - there should in any case be no need for MOUs, the states party should be requiring imported cultural property from ALL countries to have valid export licences from the country of origin of the shipment. Otherwise they are just states fostering cowboy businesses trading in illicitly obtained items.


The fundamental problem is that, as a means to deal with the trade in illicitly-obtained archaeological artefacts, the 1970 Conventiont is already out of date. It was written to address the problems of another antiquities market within the general "art market". In this earlier manifestation, the archaeological items moving across borders were big and going to relatively limited numbers of major collectors and museums. At the time this convention was being written, however, metal detectors were already in the process of changing the nature of antiquities collecting, both what was being collected and in what quantities. The market is no longer just in "works of art" but any old broken bric-a-brac dug up on ancient sites. The collecting of artefacts became "democratised" (sic) by the lowering of prices as the threshold of what was collectable was lowered drastically by the availability of metal (in particular) "partifacts" in bulk. This was not taken into account by the Convention. Two decades later, the Internet produced another revolution in the way these items could be bought and sold, no longer through bricks and moratar shops which could be registered and their records examined (Art. 10a). This too is not taken into account in the Convention. The UNESCO Convention with its Article 7 is a fossil of the nineteenth century trade. The way that it is "implemented" in the US is designed to keep the US antiquities trade firmly in the Petrarchian/ nineteenth century no-questions-asked mould which suits both collectors and dealers fine. But does nothing to stop the looting.

It is odd to think that an analogy might be equally lively discussions today on the implementation of an international convention on international currency exchange or personal data storage and dissemination both written in 1970 when these things were done on paper which was not replaced by one which took into account that digital means of information storage and transfer (the Internet) have revolutionised these fields too. The current form of the ACCG and coin dealer Sayles and Lavendar would be impossible without the internet, let's have a convention about archaological artefacts to fit the times. Rather than debating how a forty year old fossil Convention should be "implemented" we need to be discussing how we should have a Convention which applies to the realities of the antiquities (or if you like "art") market of the 2010s and not the 1960s and 1970s.


Vignette: Current US customs controls as substantial a threat to illicit antiquities smuggling as a barrier of bubbles.
.

11 comments:

Damien Huffer said...

Spot on, Paul... Most Native American loot is internally bought and sold, sometimes even confined to particular regions, since most US collectors in it generally come from the area the artifacts are found, and thus know something of their rarity/value/real context pre-looting. SW US is a great example. It's rather epidemic there now. Will you blog about your suggestions on how to update the Convention? I'd be interested to discuss that with you...

Larry Rothfield said...

Paul, you are absolutely right about the weakness of the enforcement mechanism attached to antiquities laws. Like the 1954 Hague Convention, which aims at stopping armies from pillaging but says nothing about military responsibility for preventing civilians from looting, the CPIA has become quaint. We need a different approach to the problem that starts from recognizing the market has metastasized. The best solution, I think, is to tax all purchases of antiquities, including purchases made over the internet or abroad. Buyers bringing in stuff would have to fill out forms, with photos, etc., and could be prosecuted for tax evasion. Monies raised would be dedicated to improving site protection and paying for better enforcement, so that the trade would bear the costs of its policing.

Dave Welsh said...

This post suggests that you also believe that the time has come to reappraise UNESCO 1970 and to correct its flaws. Toward that purpose, I invite you to resume participation in UNIDROIT-L during discussion of that Convention. Toward that end, it is appropriate to restate list policy regarding such discussions:

1) The listrules have been published, in the FAQ and message archive. Basically they state that provided reasonable civility and topicality is maintained, posts will not be interfered with. I do not censor viewpoints on that list, only listmanners and topicality.

2) If I have a problem with a message, I normally email the author and try to work out a revision that is acceptable.

3) Every point of view is welcome on the list, especially the anticollecting point of view which is underrepresented.

4) In the past you have indicated a desire to have the list moderator “foster a discussion” to ensure that all points of view are respected on this list, and to ensure that the message of contributors such as yourself is not overwhelmed by adverse opinion.

It may require a fairly thick skin to advocate some of your positions on UNIDROIT-L, but I do not think a better opportunity to work toward achieving that objective on that list is likely to present itself than this discussion.

Finally I think I should make it clear that my objective is to do as much as possible to secure the adoption of fair, sensible and effective antiquities laws that can be enforced without imposing unreasonable and unjust burdens on collectors. Laws that do little or nothing to prevent looting of archaeological sites, laws allowing artifacts to be neglected, stolen or vandalized whilst in official custody, or allowing them to be destroyed to keep them out of the hands of collectors if not needed for institutional collections, and laws that seek to restrict or close down antiquities markets on the assumption that this will significantly reduce looting are all equally wrong in my eyes.

I have never wanted to see looting of archaeological sites continue, my opinion of that and what should happen to looters being much the same as yours (hanging, drawing and quartering is too good for them). We differ on whether collectors really do contribute to looting, and I believe I can fairly maintain that I understand that subject better than you do – which of course is debatable.

At any rate I believe that this discussion offers a favorable opportunity to explore what can be accomplished if we work together toward a common goal. If we don’t do that and instead fall out amongst ourselves, then the looters will have the better prospects.

Dave Welsh
Unidroit-L Listowner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L
dwelsh46@cox.net

Paul Barford said...

Hmm. Dave don't you think that instead of "discussing" this with the likes of Alfredo De la Fe, Kevin Neve, Farhad Assar, Eftis Paraskevaides and the rest of you lot over on your discussion forum, I might prefer to take this through ICOMOS and other professional organizations to UNESCO?

Past history shows that your discussion group is not actually a place where anything like this can properly be discussed. This is more than a "thick skin" issue, it is a lack of relevant people to discuss the real issues with.

The group - like the ACCG - is composed of people who want ("fight for") no change to their "rights" to buy whatever they want, hang the wider consequences and for whom contemplating any change whatsoever involves too much effort- and anyway anyone saying there needs to be a change is immediately accused of "not understanding how the trade works". Furthermore past experience on the list shows that you all want somebody else to step in and sort things out for you, the idea of pro-actively doing something to right wrongs is not in your conceptual framework, like kids.

You furthermore get me wrong when you refer to my position as "anticollecting". As should be clear from even a superficial reading of what I quite clearly state here, I am against unethical and irresponsible (no-questions-asked/indiscriminate) dealings with archaeological finds. The discussion list you run is not since as far as your members are concerned, "anything goes" that does not actually break a (US) law.

Dave, don't put words into my mouth, its not the looters who need punishing, but unethical collectors and dealers who finance them. (I have in mind more financial and penetential sanctions rather than capital punishment.)

If you and fellow dealers want to dscuss modifying the UNESCO 1970 convention to better protect archaeological record from looting, I am sure we will all be very interested in seeing what you come up with by yourselves.

Dave Welsh said...

Paul,

I have begun this discussion on UNIDROIT-L and I won't move it again. If "... the rest of you lot" are not included, this discussion will not result in anything useful.

> ... your discussion group is not actually a place where anything like this can properly be discussed.
UNIDROIT-L has clarified the understanding collectors have of cultural property law. If proposed changes are not understood and supported by collectors, these changes are not likely to be favorably received by the collecting community.

> This is more than a "thick skin" issue, it is a lack of relevant people to discuss the real issues with.
The relevant people in the collecting community will be represented in this discussion on UNIDROIT-L.

> You furthermore get me wrong when you refer to my position as "anticollecting".
Your positions, if implemented in law would in my opinion, and that of other advocates of collectors' rights, have catastrophic effects upon collecting.

> I am against unethical and irresponsible (no-questions-asked/indiscriminate) dealings with archaeological finds.
It is essential to have clear and agreed-upon definitions of terms. What is an "archaeological find?" One example of how this can be interpreted is provided in the Parks Canada Archaeological Recording Manual:
"4.9.1.1 Isolated Archaeological Find: Definition
A single archaeological object that is, or was, located in situ on, below or above the ground, or lands under water, such as a single projectile point, or fragments from a single ceramic vessel. Other criteria may be applied to the definition at the discretion of the archaeologist ..."

I do not think anyone is going to quarrel with referring to something that has been found in the course of an excavation supervised by an archaeologist as an "archaeological find."

The difficulty occurs when an artifact of unknown provenience is discussed.

The position those in collectors' rights advocacy movement take is that artifacts are "innocent until proven guilty," i.e. that an artifact of unknown provenience should not be considered illicit if its provenance is unknown.

> its not the looters who need punishing, but unethical collectors and dealers who finance them.
If you are actually referring to those unsavory individuals in source nations who buy artifacts from looters, either by individual arrangements or when they are taken to the local marketplace, I think there is broad agreement between us. If you are referring to people like myself, Wayne Sayles and Alfredo de la Fe as "unethical ... dealers" because we acquire and sell unprovenanced coins, there is strong disagreement on that interpretation.

> If you and fellow dealers want to dscuss modifying the UNESCO 1970 convention to better protect archaeological record from looting, I am sure we will all be very interested in seeing what you come up with by yourselves.

The intention is to arrive at fair and enforceable laws that will be respected. The UK scheme impresses me and others in the collectors' rights advocacy movement as being both fair and enforceable. Its effectiveness in protecting the archaeological record from looting is not perfect, but in my opinion the UK scheme has done much better in attracting public support than the legal regime prevailing in Greece, Turkey or Egypt.

Dave Welsh
Unidroit-L Listowner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L
dwelsh46@cox.net

Paul Barford said...

Dave Welsh writes:
If "... the rest of you lot" are not included, this discussion will not result in anything useful.
Well, that rather begs the question of how “useful” attempting to discuss anything with (quote) “the relevant people in the collecting community” (sic) on the Unidroit-L discussion list would actually be. Past experience shows the members of your list (which includes the list owner/dominator/moderator) are for the majority collectors of ancient coins rather than any other kind of artefact, and have absolutely no intention of doing anything except kick against any idea of change, and since it’s the same old people spouting the same old stuff, no change in that seems at all likely. There is, as I say, on that list a total lack of relevant people with whom to discuss the real issues involved here, and a total lack of a broader vision of what those issues actually are. The entire list – like the ACCG - is clearly devoted instead to finding arguments to maintain the status quo for ancient coin collectors.

Welsh adds:
(citing the “Parks Canada [!] Archaeological Recording Manual”): I do not think anyone is going to quarrel with referring to something that has been found in the course of an excavation supervised by an archaeologist as an "archaeological find." What? So what the PAS records are NOT “archaeological finds” according to the definition you read in a sorry Canadian “how to dig holes” technical manual and not understood? But then this has nothing to do with “Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property”.

This is typical of just what one is up against trying to discuss anything rationally with you lot. Its just going round in circles, but first having to point out to the collectors who can't keep up where their tails are so they can chase them round in circles. [Been there, done it, have the teeshirt.]


The UK scheme impresses me and others in the collectors' rights advocacy movement as being both fair and enforceable. Hmm, but of course it has nothing to do with the “Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property” does it? That is an entirely separate body of legislation, and in that Britain differs not an iota from the legislation in Italy you lot are busy fighting. Not an iota. Once again, we see the problems of discussing anything in circles of dealers and collectors who can't see the wood for their own special trees. More chasing tangents and going round in circles.


If you are referring to people like myself, Wayne Sayles and Alfredo de la Fe as "unethical ... dealers" because we acquire and sell unprovenanced coins, there is strong disagreement on that interpretation. Got it in one. We are talking “ethical” not “merely legal”. The current indiscriminate no-questions-asked trade in artefacts quite clearly conceals the channels by which there is a transfer of ownership of illicitly obtained artefacts. A truly ethical approach would be not to tolerate it. Period.

Dave Welsh said...

Paul,

If you desire to make a serious contribution to arriving at sensible cultural property laws, the UNIDROIT-L discussion is an opportunity to do so.

If you don't desire to take advantage of that opportunity, I see no reason to make further attempts to engage you at this time, or to believe that you are interested in a productive discussion of issues leading to a cooperative settlement of differences.

The collectors' rights movement has now proven that collecting interests cannot be steamrollered, and if adversarial approaches by the archaeology lobby are still pursued then it is reasonable to expect the present standoff to continue.

Meanwhile, I intend to pursue better and more sensible laws from the collectors' perspective.

Dave Welsh
Unidroit-L Listowner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L
dwelsh46@cox.net

Paul Barford said...

Welsh wheedles: If you desire to make a serious contribution to arriving at sensible cultural property laws, the UNIDROIT-L discussion is an opportunity to do so. You seem not to have noticed that this much vaunted “discussion” of the legislation between collectors does not seem to have taken off at all. Perhaps that's why you'd like me to write something.

For the reasons I have given, I really do not think that exchanging time-consuming pleasantries over there with Alredo de la Fe, Farhad Assar, Kevin Neve, Eftis Paraskevaides and the other types that lists like yours tend to attract really is an “opportunity” to “make a useful contribution”.

Perhaps therefore I could be a better judge of where I think my time is better spent and how to make my own opportunities to get a point over.

The collectors' rights movement has now proven that collecting interests cannot be steamrollered . We will see whether anything has been “proven”. There are many shattered Cambodian temples and plundered archaeological sites in the US that say it should be otherwise. Collectors and dealers are driving the steamroller over the remains of the past and it is premature to be whooping in triumph as they do.

Dave Welsh said...

> Collectors and dealers are driving the steamroller over the remains of the past and it is premature to be whooping in triumph as they do.

It is clearly useless to attempt to engage you in any sort of serious discussion in this forum.

Since you are no longer participating in the AncientArtifacts list, the Moneta-L list, or the Unidroit-L list (even though I have made a special effort to invite you to do so), there does not appear to be any prospect of having a useful discussion with you.

Dave Welsh
Unidroit-L Listowner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L
dwelsh46@cox.net

Paul Barford said...

It seems I did not recognise that "The collectors' rights movement has now proven that collecting interests cannot be steamrollered" was an attempt at "serious discussion".

I took it instead as an expression of the main reason why there seems little point in asking collectors how much they are willing to do to change the current damaging market.

Yes, I've done my stint of talking "with" collectors and dealers, I'm moving on to talking and writing about collectors and dealers.

But let somebody else who believes it may actually achieve something try to reason (or "collaborate") with you. Roger Bland for example. That's his job, not mine.

Anonymous said...

Point of information, in case any of Mr Welsh’s customers are reading this:

He is impressed by the UK scheme. Well, under the UK scheme ten thousand metal detectorists deliberately and legally target a million archaeological sites and are free to sell 99.9% of what they find, with no provenance or a false provenance to Mr Welsh who then feels justified in selling them on to his delighted and trusting customers. Oh, and some of them do the same on illegal sites and dispose of the loot the same way. Its cultural rape, and dealers who buy without being sure what they are buying are pivotal.

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.