The Chasing Aphrodite blog ('Introducing WikiLoot: Your Chance to Fight the Illicit Antiquities Trade', March 12, 2012) announces an exciting new project they’ve been thinking about for some time. They are calling it WikiLoot. The idea behind WikiLoot is simple:
1. Create an open source web platform, or wiki, for the publication and analysis of a unique archive of primary source records and photographs documenting the illicit trade in looted antiquities.
2. Use social media and other tools to engage a broad network of contributors — experts, journalists, researchers, dilettantes and curious citizens — to collaborate in the analysis of that material.
Well, first of all I must say that I am for any and every initiative which gets "everyone" involved in questioning the current state of antiquities collecting and in particular the antiquities trade. This is exactly what archaeological outreach should be doing, but is not. It is good to see some real investigative journalists after doing some real investigative journalism (unlike their British counterparts who queue up outside the BM for their crib sheets to write yet another trite fluffy-bunny-treasure story) and then doing something about what they found out. I do have a number of misgivings though.
The authors of the idea seem to be planning to use "the vast amount of documentation seized by European investigators over the past two decades during investigations of the illicit trade in Classical antiquities smuggled (primarily) out of Greece and Italy. These business records, journals, correspondence and photographs seized from looters and middlemen during those investigations comprise a unique record of the black market". Jason Felch announces: "During six years of reporting on the topic, I obtained much of this archive, including images of thousands of looted antiquities that have yet to be located". The problem is that they surmise that "much of that documentation remains tangled in legal cases that are likely to end inconclusively, like that of former Getty antiquities curator Marion True and dealer Robert Hecht". Here we have the problem of the disregard of the American sponsors for those Others who - they are sure - are going to mess everything up unless the transatlantic "Truth-Justice-and-The-American-Way"-brigade step in and sort things out for them.
The proposals shows the authors' actual aim (and possibly the identity of the "everyone") in fact to be rather narrow:
"WikiLoot will identify looted antiquities in American museums by crowd-sourcing the analysis of a unique archive seized from black market dealers".They plan therefore to pre-emptively "make these records and photographs publicly available on the web and will enlist collaborators around the world to tag and analyze them". So a sort of global crowd-sourced Christos Tsirogiannis-David Gill clones.
The authors claim they are considering the "concerns about the effect this release of information will have on existing collections and the still-thriving market for antiquities with unclear ownership histories". I am not clear what they have in mind, but certainly if Mr Felch thinks that any more objects will be "surfacing" after their pictures are published in a catalogue of "black market antiquities", he must think the sellers of these things are pretty stupid. Mr Felch also ignores the whole question of the effect of releasing this information on ongoing investigations. This is the same series of issues that I had with Dorothy King's original idea, that releasing certain material will adversely affect prosecutions of further dodgy dealers and sellers with dodgy stuff on their hands.
Update 14th March 2012: Dugup Dealers' paid lobbyist Peter Tompa asks whether this is nothing more than a "High (sic) Tech Witch Hunt". One might suspect that his concern is the number of his clients' mates who run the risk of being "caught with" (as he puts it) "their pants down" as a result of this closer public scrutiny. But of course EVERY one of his clients and their mates will loudly protest that they care "a lot" about looting, and would want to know if anything in their stock was of illicit origins and take appropriate action immediately. It seems their glib assurances might soon be put to the test in a very public manner.
6 comments:
hi paul,i for one would welcome the publication of these archives.has it occured to you that these "dodgy dealers"or collectors, may not even know they have tainted pieces in their inventory[look at graham geddes,he was buying from sothebys,not some back street trader].most of these pieces were sold through "respectable" auction houses with dodgy provenances.i can understand your concern that the publication of the archives would mean that most of the pieces would just dissapear but i dont think they will,some dealers are just to greedy not to try to pass them on.i say ,lets publish and so we all know what is out there and put this particular episode to bed.of course,this will have no effect on the newly looted pieces,they will still be going under the radar,hand in hand with their dodgy provenances.
kyri.
So if a collector finds one of HIS objects which he bought for lottsa $$$$ in "Wikiloot" listed as a Black Market Antiquity (on what grounds? Who says so?) what do you expect him to do with it? Run along to the LA Times suggesting the journalists write his story - the innocent victim of his own lack of due diligence, and then hope the piece has not lost any value? Or would he place it in a black cabinet and instruct his children never to open it? The only thing it IS going to prevent is him popping along to the auction house and selling it openly - as he will be caught.
I also think (as I said about Dorothy's idea) there are huge legal problems here.
Your desire to "put this episode to bed" is worrying, it suggests that when we've got the ityems which rather awkwardly were photographed with mud on them out of the way, we can carry on enjoying the profits from the ones that - by luck - never were photographed with mud on them, sold by many other dealers all over the world, to many thousands of could-not-care-less collectors. That we have a few thousand photos is the tip of the iceberg, and we should not think that by concentrating the efforts on everybody chipping away at its tip, that we will have solved the iceberg issue - even if we manage to totally remove the tip, there is much more hidden where we cannot see it so easily, which as we remove the tip will surface.
That's quite a good metaphor, what a shame I did not think of it when writing the post...
as i said,the publication of these archives would have no effect at all on recently looted pieces. there is only so much due diligence a collector can do,especially when dealing with unscrupulous dealers who have turnd the fabrication of provenance into an art form,with forged letters and invoices dateing back decades.not everything has been published and sometimes an old invoice or letter is all one has and while the market has to have an element of trust there will allways be people willing to take advantage.as for your iceberg analogy,i agree with you,there are many more pieces that are not in archives and anyone selling ilicit antiquities would know not to take any photos or keep any paperwork.the medici episode was a wake up call not only for the people fighting the looting but also the people doing the looting.im sure that they are not so brazen now.
kyri.
kyri.
So what you are saying is that even though with a particular piece a collector cannot do the proper due diligence, they've "just GOT to have it" so they buy it anyway? Well, ask yourself if that is likely to be what I have in mind talking of "truly responsible collecting". I'd sa it's more about what you refuse to get mixed up with than what you buy that makes a truly responsible collector.
hi paul,i cant talk for everyone but personally i have walked away from many pieces,
if a collector is buying a piece from the collection of mr x and the dealer gives you paperwork in the form of an invoice from y antiquities which is a shop which ceased trading in the 60s,how do you propose due diligence can be done. sometimes a collector has to make a judgement call.its easy for the seller to provide a paper trail but its not allways easy for the buyer to be able to verify it.i recently bought a small group of greek lekythoi from bonhams which were from the collection of sir francis sacheveral darwin[the uncle of charles darwin]which he collected in 1808 on the grand tour.
i asked bonhams if there was any paper trail to verify this but all they would say is that they come from a darwins descendants.now i have consigned to bonhams in the past and there due diligence tests are much better than they were 10-15 years ago.they ask for invoices,collection notes and the consigner has to fill in a provenance declaration certificate,i made a judgement call that,knowing bonhams and how they operate,they must have done there due diligence and these pieces are from darwins collection,sometimes you have to put your trust in others and there is no way round it.of course,they are still fooled on the odd ocasion but they are getting better.
kyri.
Right. Now (with regard the Darwin stuff) have you written down on a piece of paper more or less what you told me, and put it in a folder or sleeve with the invoice, and maybe the clipping from the Bonhams catalogue to pass on to the object's next owner? That's a start.
And two centuries from now a collector will buy a vase with the paperwork, by now a thicker folder and see "Kyri" - ah Kyri, he will say, "I've something else of his, good taste, good bloke, kept all the papers in order!"
Post a Comment