The recent publicity about antiquity seizures in Pakistan brings to mind an old article from two years ago: Sebastian Abbot, 'Pakistan struggles with smuggled Buddhist relics', Phys.Org.com 4th October 2012
 |
| Pakistani artist Salahud Deen shows samples of Buddhist artefacts he created in Taxila, a famous Buddhist archaeologist site near Islamabad, Pakistan. (AP Photo/B.K. Bangash taken on July 17, 2012) |
Rather than dig up Buddhist relics, some Pakistanis have focused on making replicas [...] that they often try to pass off as the real thing—although this practice is also illegal in the country. Many operate covertly around the ancient Buddhist site of Taxila, a short drive from the capital, Islamabad. "I learned the practice from my fellow villagers in my childhood and can fake anything using cement, small stones, some colors and chemicals," said Salahud Deen, who works out of his home in a village near Taxila. The 30-year-old high school dropout was contacted by The Associated Press through the owner of a tea shop in the area and showed off a sample of his wares, including a small statue of the Buddha's head. He said he recently received an order from a man in Sri Lanka to make a 3-foot tall "fasting Buddha" statue and expected to make a little more than $200 in the process.Of course very many of these fake artefacts are being bought as authentic by no-questions-asking artefact collectors, and then resurface on the market 'legitimised' by coming from "an old [...] collection" to contaminate the pool of antiquities available to collectors and museums. Collectors and dealers seem not a bit interested in taking steps to identify the actual origins of the artefacts they are offered at source. Why, if they believe they come from licit sources?
8 comments:
Thank you this blog, very interesting as I am considering acquisition of some indo-greek artefact's. The problem I have is that some smaller items do not justify TL testing as the test costs more than the item!
I think I'd do the tests anyway, and hope they show that the trophy items you covet were made in a garage rather than dug up by warlords and militant groups in the heartland of the 'Indo Greek' realms in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Do you really want in your home looted material that has passed through the hands of rapists, murderers and other such people? If you do, you must be an awful person. Go away please. Collect artefacts with the proper paperwork and lose no sleep and lose no friends.
Paul
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I'm sure you are well aware that "proper paperwork" does not ensure that an item is not a forgery or "looted". Many items in major museums such as the Louvre and or sold at major auction houses such Christies have been subsequently shown be fakes.
Lastly your negative and unnecessary speculation on my ethics says something about you. I will most certainly "Go Away"
I think the whole question of whether the buying and selling of Gandharan antiquities is at all ethical is a moot point. I do not know what you expected coming waltzing onto blog like mine gaily announcing "I am considering acquisition of some Indo-Greek artefact's (sic)" but you cannot afford to properly check them out....
I do not know why you use scare-quotes for the word looted.
Paul
I will respond since you did
I found your blog article informative. If anything I was expecting some discussion on the topic on forgeries not speculation on my character
The use of quotes symbols (three times) was to show and emphasize that I was quoting you nothing more
Not at all "speculation", but an "if".
For me, and a lot of other people, the authenticity is a secondary issue. I wrote that if you were unconcerned that they had come from the illicit trade - with all that this would imply - then I'm not really interested in discussing any of this with you. Good folk would, when the issue is raised, buy properly papered artefacts to avoid this - particularly when collecting from this part of the world. But there are a lot of fakes on the market from this area too- probably also to some extent, or perhaps mainly, financing the same bad guys.
Do I want to acquire artefact's that have come from illicit (or worse) trade of course not. I'll put forward that having proper papers is not a guarantee that an artifact is a) a forgery or b) come from illicit trade so the question is then how does one know with certainty that is it not a fake or some from illicit trade. The former is easier as independent testing or expert appraisal can ensure some (but not all) items are not a fake however proving no illicit trade in any part of the history of an artifact is far more problematic. Its not like fair trade coffee or chocolate where every stage of the supply chain can be interdependency audited
> having proper papers is not a guarantee that an artifact is [not] a forgery or comes from illicit trade <
But that is no excuse for buying ANY artefacts that do not have paperwork.
>. Its not like fair trade coffee or chocolate where every stage of the supply chain can be interdependency audited<
and why would that be? Think about it for a moment. If "licit" in terms of the 1970 (so 50 years ago) Convention is defined in terms of documentability of compliance with the convention, why should there be a preponderance of artefacts on the market that have NO such paperwork? What is so "different" about antiquities and antiquity collectors?
As I said, whether an artefact is "authentic" or not is not the issue here.
Post a Comment