Another US 'Antique' Smuggling Case: Why Import Restrictions Are Needed

.
I doubt whether there is an Artistic Ivory Collectors' Guild, a "non-profit organization committed to promoting the free and independent collecting of artistic products of ivory regardless of date or place of origin, a group of collectors and professionals who care passionately about preserving, studying and displaying ivory objects". If there were, in the face of the enforcement of import restrictions on the type of object collected, it would probably employ much the same arguments as the coineys and dugup antiquity collectors. Coineys and dugup antiquity collectors argue that they should be above any laws and restrictions because they are "researchers", interested in "cultural internationalism" and fighting for "free enterprise" of those that, like them oppose "retentionist laws" which lead to import restrictions. These people however are blinkered in their view, focussing only on the OBJECTS, the ones they want to collect and trade in. they ignore the context, the destruction that is caused in extracting these OBJECTS from a wider reality. In the case of dugup antiquities that is archaeological sites and the archaeological record (common archaeological heritage) in a far-off country. A fragile, finite and threatened resource. In the case of elephant ivory, it is herds and the ecological habitat (the common natural heritage) in a far off country. A fragile, finite and threatened resource. Frankly, it does not matter what other arguments are offered to support the no-questions-asked trade in either commodity, the fundamental one is that of the sustainable preservation of the resource from which they come.

It seems to be a great mental effort for collectors of dugup antiquities to get into their blinkered brains that the preservationist case over artefacts is a conservation issue like any other. Or maybe they just don't want to think of it in that way, seeing any measures taken to clean up the market as gubn'mint interference in their hobby, at the instigation of a group of evil elitist academics, and all these laws and restrictions just so much verbiage which does not apply to them and anyway, just downright "unfair". Let's have a look at why this matters. First the elephant conservation issue, then the archaeological one.

Trade in elephant ivory is forbidden by U.S. law and international convention for good reason. As their habitat shrinks, species such as the African elephant are increasingly endangered, and active steps have to be (and to some extent are) being taken to help offset this threat. This is the same as the case of archaeological sites all over the world threatened by development and land use (eg agriculture). In both the case of archaeological sites and endangered species there is however also a quite separate threat, the commercial value placed by unscrupulous dealers on elements of both archaeological sites and African elements. in one case dugup artefacts, in the other the ivory of their teeth. In both cases the people that obtain these commodities are totally uninterested in the rest of the thing they destroy. Elephant poachers do not eat the carcass, artefact hunters dig through and discard the main body of the archaeological evidence from which they extract a few sealeable and collectable geegaws.

Victim of poaching: elephant carcass in Zakouma National Park, Chad (Mike Fey, National Geographic).


Victim of artefact hunting: Wanborough temple site during excavation after the site had been well and truly 'done over' by metal detectorists and other artefact hunters (David Graham).

Elephants now live in relatively restricted areas of Africa in two main habitats, on the savanna and in the forests. The ivory from the latter is particularly sought after as a raw material for "art", as it is denser than that of the grassland animals. The number of forest elephants killed for their tusks has jumped in recent years, said the expert, Richard Ruggerio, who runs the agency's conservation programs in Africa. "We're seeing the last battle for the survival of the forest elephant [...] The elephant population has fallen sharply in the past 20 to 30 years". He attributes this to the no-questions-asked nature of the "art" market: "The market goes up, so the killing goes up". Much of it is driven by demand from a newly affluent Asian market where ivory figures are treasured. James Deutsch, who runs the African conservation program at the Wildlife Conservation Society, estimated there were about 100,000 forest elephants left in central Africa and said forest elephants in Central Africa "could go extinct in 10 to 20 years". Herds have already gone from a large part of their original range.

Forest elephants can live to more than 50 years. They live in herds, but these are now being broken up by the activity of the poachers not just by the killing of individual elephants, but also by the damage done to the group structure when a lead elephant has been eliminated. Poachers first seek out the largest males in the group, then mid-size males, then the largest females, typically the matriarchs. With their deaths, the social structure of the group disintegrates, the rest of the animals of the group "act like displaced persons from a war", as one naturalist put it.

Illegal trade in freshly slaughtered African elephant ivory is therefore a major threat to elephant populations in Africa, particularly in the hardest hit poaching regions of West and Central Africa. Controls on the market which provides the demand for the raw material are necessary to supplement the measures taken to stop poaching in the field, but the effectiveness of the latter varies, Gabon is an example of a country with progressive leadership putting resources into fighting elephant poaching, other countries lack the resources or will to do so.

African elephants are protected under an international treaty that dates back to 1975 to prevent the species from becoming endangered or extinct due to international trade. The African elephant also is listed as a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Ivory over 100 years old can be imported as an antique. Newer ivory has been banned since the 1980s under an international conservation treaty. Sadly the conventions and laws governing this trade are ignored by many of those engaged in a no-questions-asked trade, arguing that if other nations don't apply these rules (China for example), then dealers and collectors in countries like the USA are not going to take the lead and give up their "rights" to buy and sell what they want. Such self-centred 'two-wrongs-make-a-right' arguments however are not going to help save the African elephant population.

Archaeological sites are accessible to looters in many areas of the ancient world, and certain types of artefacts are particularly sought after as a form of "ancient art". the number of archaeological sites that have been eroded, severely damaged or destroyed by artefact hunting (plundered as a source of collectables) has jumped in recent years with the rise of a plethora of internet dealers selling "pieces of the past" no-questions-asked to an expanding number of could-not-care-;less collectors all over the world, including expanding markets in Asia. In many regions of the world, we are seeing the last battle for the survival of the archaeological record. The dataset of intact sites in the landscape of many regions has fallen sharply in the past 20 to 30 years. This may be attributable directly to the no-questions-asked "art" market: "The market goes up, so the digging goes up". The Monuments at Risk survey in Britain estimated that there were about 1000,000 archaeological sites left in England and Wales, and with 8 000 artefact hunters looking for sites to extract collectable finds from, it is clear that very soon, there will not be any sites at all that have not been emptied of collectable archaeological finds by artefact hunters with no way of knowing what was destroyed and discarded, what was taken and what happened to it. Some archaeologists have been heard suggesting that much of the surface evidence forming the archaeological record "could have gone in the next 10 to 20 years". Sites have already been "hammered" in some regions meaning artefact hunters already have to go further and further away from their homes to find "productive" sites.

The patterns of sites in the landscape is being distorted and broken up by this activity, not just by the destruction of individual sites but by the damage done to the group structure when a leading ones in the area have been eliminated by being used as a source of collectables. Artefact hunters first seek out the largest and most 'productive' sites in the complex, then sites of lesser productivity when they are exhausted, or they may strip finds from the inter-site areas between which give clues as to land use and the articulation of the settlement network. With the selective removal of this material, the structure of the group disintegrates, the rest of the sites in the group can no longer be interpreted as part of a coherent landscape pattern.

The unregulated trade in artefacts freshly plundered from sites for entertainment and profit is therefore a major threat to our knowledge of the past across vast areas of the ancient world, particularly in the hardest hit artefact poaching regions of Europe and the Near East. Obviously controls on the market which provides the demand for the commodity are necessary to supplement the measures taken to stop poaching in the field, but the effectiveness of the latter varies, some countries lack the resources or will to do so, a situation which collectors and dealers currently exploit.

The trade in archaeological artefacts is covered by a number of international treaties going back to the 1950s, and these are intended to prevent the endangerment or destruction of the archaeological record due to international trade. Sadly the conventions and laws governing this trade are ignored by many of those engaged in a no-questions-asked trade, arguing that if other nations don't apply these rules (China for example), then dealers and collectors in countries like the USA are not going to take the lead and give up their "rights" to buy and sell what they want. Such self-centred 'two-wrongs-make-a-right' arguments however are not going to help save the archaeological record from destruction.

Now, with the upcoming trial of a Pennsylvania art dealer and a clampdown on the application of import restriction laws, will we be seeing the emergence in the United States of collectors' interest groups like this?

The Artistic Ivory Collectors' Guild (AICG) was formed to provide a voice for collectors of ivory art on issues that threaten the hobby. Given a widespread disinformation campaign about the extent of ivory poaching in Africa, we fear that ideologues within the environmental protection establishment have subverted laudable efforts to protect endangered species into a crusade to suppress the public's longstanding right to preserve, study and display artefacts made of ivory, including ones as common as ornaments and jewellery. Unless we provide decision makers in the legislative and administrative branches of government with our own views on the complex issues surrounding preservation of animal populations, we face the prospect that our right to collect artefacts made of ivory will be legislated out of existence by ill-informed decision makers who have been told that anything of ivory should stay on the elephant in the country where it is found, and that only academic elites in public collections should have a right to study and preserve the artifacts of this material.

See:
Nathan Gorenstein and Drew Singer, 'Philadelphia business imported illegal ivory carvings, prosecutors say', The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jul. 26, 2011.

Maryclaire Dale (Associated Press), 'Staggering amount of ivory smuggled into US', 3news.co.nz, 27 Jul 2011. (similar by same author: Feds: Pa. shop-owner smuggled ton of banned ivory)

Michael Hinkelman, 'Philadelphia man charged in major ivory trafficking probe', Philadelphia Daily News, Jul. 26, 2011.

Vignette: ivory "art" like that sold by Victor Gordon Enterprises, Philadelphia USA. It really angers me that an elephant, living breathing sentient being, is slaughtered cruelly by poachers just so some jerk can make make the worst possible kind of kitsch from its teeth, so another jerk (after he's paid off the poachers and smugglers) can make money convincing more jerks that this is some form of legitimate art.