UNESCO's Faulty Understanding of the Modern International Antiquities Market

More than five years ago, UNESCO seems to have woken up to the fact that its 1970 Convention (written on the basis of the state of the market in the 1960s) was inadequate to deal with the antiquities market of the 21st century. Instead of drawing the right conclusions (which is to reassess it and write another one) they got a committee of experts together to meet, have dinners together and a good old chat about it and they came up with a document, which - quelle surprise envisages making more commissions, and reporting sessions so they can get together, have dinner and chat away about the problems - while leaving the action up to others.

They came up with a document in summer 2007 (the background here and here) which is as notable for its airy-fairyness as it is for the obvious lack of any understanding about how the market they want to regulate works. I am reproducing it below in its entirety in case the original vanishes from their website in embarrassment (as it should):

Basic Actions concerning Cultural Objects being offered for Sale
over (sic) the Internet

As cultural property is a unique testimony to the culture and identity of a people and an irreplaceable asset for its future, INTERPOL, UNESCO and ICOM are concerned by the ongoing increase of illicit trafficking in such property. In particular, as recently confirmed by an INTERPOL survey carried out in 56 Member States, it has been internationally recognized that the illicit trade in cultural objects via the Internet is a very serious and growing problem, both for countries of "origin" (where the theft has occurred) and destination countries. It is well known that the significance, provenance and authenticity of the cultural objects offered for sale on the Internet vary considerably. Some have historical, artistic or cultural value, others do not; their origin can be legal or illicit, and some are genuine, while others are forgeries. Most countries do not have the means to review all Internet sales nor to investigate all offers of a suspicious nature. However, all countries should attempt to respond to the illicit trade in cultural objects via the Internet by taking the appropriate measures.

These issues were discussed at the third annual meeting of the INTERPOL Expert Group on Stolen Cultural Property held at the INTERPOL General Secretariat on 7 and 8 March 2006. The participants agreed that monitoring the Internet poses a number of challenges due to:

a) the sheer volume and diversity of items offered for sale;

b) the variety of venues or platforms for the sale of cultural objects on the Internet;

c) missing information that hinders proper identification of objects;

d) the limited reaction time available owing to short bidding periods during a sale;

e) the legal position of the companies, entities or individuals serving as platforms for the trade in cultural objects over the Internet;

f) the complex issues related to jurisdiction concerning these sales; and

g) the fact that the objects sold are often located in a country different from that of the Internet platform.

Following a recommendation adopted by this meeting, INTERPOL, UNESCO and ICOM have therefore developed the subsequent list of Basic Actions to counter the Increasing Illicit Sale  of Cultural Objects through the Internet [footnote 1: The above-mentioned Basic Actions are neither "Recommendations", nor "Declarations, Charters and similar standard-setting instruments" adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO, nor "Resolutions" adopted by the General Assembly of Interpol].

National Committees are invited to:

1. Strongly encourage Internet sales platforms to post the following disclaimer on all their cultural objects sales pages:

"With regard to cultural objects proposed for sale, and before buying them, buyers are advised to: i) check and request a verification of the licit provenance of the object, including documents providing evidence of legal export (and possibly import) of the object likely to have been imported; ii) request evidence of the seller's legal title. In case of doubt, check primarily with the national authorities of the country of origin and INTERPOL, and possibly with UNESCO or ICOM"

2. Request Internet platforms to disclose relevant information to law enforcement agencies and to cooperate with them on investigations of suspicious sales offers of cultural objects;

3. Establish a central authority (within national police forces or other), which is also responsible for the protection of cultural properties, in charge of permanently checking and monitoring sales of cultural objects via the Internet;

4. Cooperate with national and foreign police forces and INTERPOL as well as the responsible authorities of other States concerned, in order to:

a) Insure (sic) that any theft and/or any illegal appropriation of cultural objects be reported to INTERPOL National Central Bureaux, in order to enable relevant information to be posted on the INTERPOL Stolen Works of Art Database;

b) Make information available about theft and/or any illegal appropriation of cultural  objects, as well as about any subsequent sale of such cultural objects,  from or to national territories, using the Internet;

c) Facilitate rapid identification of cultural objects by:

i) ensuring updated inventories with photographs of cultural objects, or at least their description, for example through the Object ID standard;* 

ii) maintaining a list of recommended experts;

d) Use all the tools at their disposal to conduct checks of suspicious cultural property, in particular the INTERPOL Stolen Works of Art Database and the corresponding INTERPOL DVD;

e) Track and prosecute criminal activities related to the sale of cultural objects on the Internet and inform the INTERPOL General Secretariat of major investigations involving several countries.

5. Maintain statistics and register information on the checks conducted concerning the sale of cultural objects via the Internet, the vendors in question and the results obtained;

6. Establish legal measures to immediately seize cultural objects in case of a reasonable doubt concerning their licit provenance;

7. Assure the return of seized objects of illicit provenance to their rightful owners.

[* Footnote 2: "The Object ID,which is an international standard for describing art, antiques, and antiquities, as well as a version with supplementary information (endorsed by ICOM, Getty and UNESCO), are available on the ICOM website (http://icom.museum/object-id).]

There are at least two different types of internet dissemination of antiquities to which such measures would be applicable, the first operate like bricks-and-mortar shops. The second are internet auctions such as ebay. One cannot apply the UNESCO proposals to both of them. So, what shop is going to display the disclaimer suggested in proposal 1? Who is actually going to check the origins of a coin or Roman fibula with "the national authorities of the country of origin and INTERPOL, and possibly with UNESCO or ICOM" before making a purchase from Grebkesh and Runn? And indeed, what "national authorities" are going to even react to several thousand individual enquiries of the nature UNESCO envisages? In any case this is totally naïve and idealistic, UNESCO’s 'experts' obviously don’t hang out much with the ACCG or the Yahoo ‘Ancient Artifact’ group and other artefact collectors, so know nothing of the attitudes buyers in such venues.

How do they intend applying proposal 6 to items in internet shopfronts, and still more so to items held in private homes by dealers operating under internet screen names on auction sites like eBay? First they have to get the proper name and address from the auction company - will the auctioneer just hand them over because someone has a 'suspicion' ("reasonable doubt")? What do they get out of it?

Proposals 4 a and b and d are unworkable when dealing with newly-surfaced looted items of which no record will exist of their clandestine excavation. Nowhere is it mentioned what this "committee of experts" is supposed to do (perhaps read the reports generated by proposal 5?). Who pays them - for example expenses to go and look at some suspicious item of cultural property? Who is going to pay for the policing of the Internet (proposal 3) and what for? Would, for example the police in Belgium, for example be stopping the purchase of Pre-columbian antiquities possibly from Guatemala bought through a Munich dealer through the medium of an internet website? Or would it be up to the German authorities to stop the sale (how?) or the Guatemalans? Who pays the wages of the policers, gives the office space and administrative and legal support?