"Collectors' Responsibilities" as seen in Ohio

The Portable Antiquities Scheme exists to promote a responsible attitude towards collecting of portable antiquities in England and Wales. It helps ensure that collected items and those offered for sale come from a known and licit sources and have been recorded. This aims to curb the market in illicit goods without unduly hampering legitimate collecting. The US portable antiquity collecting lobby has until now openly expressed admiration for this scheme. It has been one of the kingpins of its lobbying ‘program’ that creation of similar systems of dealing with collecting would greatly benefit collectors.

In the past few weeks, ACCG officer Dave Welsh has recently been regaling members the Council for British Archaeology’s Britarch discussion forum with his assorted thoughts on collecting and how bad it is that certain “extremists’ have unreasonable ideas that responsible collectors should stop buying artefacts of undocumented origin. In his opinion, indicating that the responsible collection of artefacts would be to stick to those that are properly provenanced and have a documented licit history is “an extreme, completely impractical and unreasonable approach."

The Chairman of Heritage Action, Nigel Swift asked him recently about his attitude as a dealer to the PAS "Advice for people buying archaeological objects from the UK”, pointing out that they propagate a similar approach to provenance as those who Welsh labeled as “extremists”. The self-appointed spokesman for US collectors stressed his "support" for the PAS and made his position clear "I regard a "full provenance" as essential insofar as that term applies to acquiring objects which British law requires to be reported". One presumes he has in mind the Treasure Act. This completely ignores the fact that the PAS and their advice are independent of the Treasure laws, but are to do with encouraging voluntary responsible behaviour in accordance with best practice. Ignoring the fact that this is the primary aim of the PAS really does not qualify one as a “supporter of PAS”.

Pressed for an answer, Mr Welsh then said "I do support PAS and its advice. However, there is an essential difference between that which applies to British subjects governed by the Treasure Act and PAS, and that which applies to all buyers in other nations". That is simply not the case. The PAS is entirely a voluntary scheme for responsible collectors and does not "govern" anyone. It asks collectors them to act in a particular way as a matter of personal responsibility - nothing to do with the law. The text of the “Advice” was however addressed to buyers abroad too requesting the same degree of personal responsibility as British citizens.

In the course of this discussion, Welsh revealed that as a US antiquities dealer he regards himself exempt from any compunction to follow PAS advice for responsible buyers of portable antiquities on the entirely spurious grounds that he is not British and therefore postulating that the advice wasn't meant to refer to him and his fellow collectors abroad. According to this view, Britain cannot possibly have any opinion on or wishes about what others should do when acquiring ancient objects of cultural interest from its soil. Surely this is something that Britons do have a right to decide themselves and not, Mr Swift correctly argued, a subject of negotiation over the other side of the Atlantic. There is no question of the foreigners having a different relationship to portable antiquities coming from British soil than Britons. Either buyers agree with PAS's advice about responsible purchasing of portable antiquities and conform, or they don't.

Referring this discussion over the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the "Advice for people buying archaeological objects from the UK” on the Unidroit-L list, Welsh was greeted by fellow antiquities dealer Eftis Paraskevaides with the words “Congratulations for exposing this verbal excrement”. Iranian chemical engineer Farhad Assar asked “Who is this "Mr. Swift"? Is he part of human race?”. John Rieske a collector who hails from Ohio (calling himself ‘Lysimachos’) however was more forthcoming about his attitude to PAS urging to collect British artefacts responsibly:

Mr. Swift (via Unidroit-L) So you think that everybody, no matter where they live should abide by your laws (British, I presume) even though I live in different country from yours. Oh! how wonderful! Now I guess we must abide by your traffic laws (driving on the left? How reprehensible!) and your court
system (which sucks BTW, [not that ours is great.]) It is the job of the citizens of a country to enforce their own laws through the establishment of responsible law enforcement, rather than shifting the onus upon citizens of other countries. You are in violation of many of my countries laws, possibly including libel and certainly in driving left of center. Do I have the right to demand that you cease and desist because I and my nation disagree with your laws? Of course not. So keep you laws to yourself and place your blame where it truly lies: with the criminals.

So there we have it, according to the Ohio collector addressing Nigel Swift's remarks, there is no reason for the PAS to try to encourage good practice among buyers of portable antiquities. He says if the British cannot stop sales of illicitly obtained artefacts through responsible (sic) law enforcement, the US collector is entirely justified in buying any of it they want because it is the fault of the British for not looking after it properly. This collector too seems unaware that the PAS is not a "law".

Does the blame for irresponsible collecting lie as Mr Rieske asserts “with the criminals” or those that aid and abet the criminals by buying illicit property from them without asking any questions?

The PAS advice seems quite straightforward to me:
“Five things to ASK :
Have you legal title to sell? Where was the object found? When was the object found? Was there a legal obligation to report the find? Has the object been recorded?If a seller cannot satisfactorily answer all or any of these questions or if you have doubts whether an object is illicit or not, then our advice is do not buy it”.
Oh and they remind foreign buyers they need an export licence to legally export archaeological finds from the UK.

What actually is so unreasonable about that when seen from Ohio?

Is Looting of archaeological sites the 'fault of archaeologists'?

.

In a famous reply to comments by Ricardo Elia, Colin Renfrew (1993) formulated the notion that “Collectors are the real looters” . By this he means that the international trade in illicitly obtained and illegally exported archeological artifacts is supported and maintained by demand from collectors that purchase such artifacts without regard for, or even enquiring into, the manner in which they were acquired and reached the market. Collectors of course deny strenuously that this is the case. I have to admit that the logic of their arguments totally escapes me. A piece of a Nok terracotta only becomes worth digging up under the hot Nigerian sun if there is somebody in the region eager to pay the “subsistence digger” money to pass it on to the international market. A cuneiform tablet is just a lump of clay to a middle eastern peasant, but can be turned into cash if they can find a purchaser. It only becomes worth venturing into the Cambodian jungle with a hammer and chisel and a big bag to visit the overgrown temple if there is a man who will buy all the little heads of smiling Buddha which have been ‘harvested’ to end up in western galleries at extortionate prices (Brodie 1998).

In retaliation for conservationists pointing out this obvious and uncomfortable truth, collectors are trying to reapportion the blame. Three of the most commonly used ploys have been rehearsed recently on archaeological forums in the English-speaking world.

1) “If you give us the stuff we want we’ll stop buying dodgy items”. In this model, the portable antiquity collector asserts that the dog-in-a-manger archaeological “elitists” trying to spoil their fun have hidden away plenty of “redundant” collectables which they should release on the market to create a regulated market.

Doing that requires more than collectors and the trade can do by themselves. A cooperative effort involving archaeologists, academics and governments is needed. […] Why won't archaeologists take an interest in establishing a regulated licit numismatic market? That would do more to eliminate looting than you could imagine.” (Dave Welsh

In an earlier post we are told:

If it were feasible to establish internationally controlled antiquities auctions, in which objects (whether surplus to museums, or recently found by archaeologists and others) would be sold with provenance after they had been duly examined and recorded, that the illegal trade in unprovenanced antiquities would be greatly diminished.” (Dave Welsh)

And:

There are many millions of redundant, unstudied antiquities in storerooms that no one has any real interest in, nor seems to have any idea what to do with. […]The motive for archaeologists to agree to such cooperation is to understand human social dynamics clearly enough to realize that this is the ONLY possible approach that can actually bring looting of archaeological sites under control. Provenance/provenience will command a sufficient economic premium in a regulated licit market to make cooperating with the authorities the only economically rational choice for those who discover antiquities. That motive will even cause those who presently loot sites to start policing them so that they can be reserved for cooperative licit excavation, if something like the Treasure Act/PAS scheme can be adopted in source states such as Iraq. (Dave Welsh)

The basic message then is that “archaeologists must agree to this, there is no alternative”. [The rather odd idea for a PAS-clone in Iraq is worthy of discussion in its own right....].

2) “If you don’t guard the sites properly, stuff will be stolen”. In this model, the portable antiquity collector asserts that archaeologists and conservationists are simply not doing enough to keep illegal diggers off sites in most of the source countries. It is this lack of site guards (presumably like the Antiquities Police of Egypt or the guards which were present in Iraq prior to 1990) which is the cause of the looting.

The looting of sites should be treated not through laws, but through proper security measures. Would you leave money lying around unattended and rely on laws to prevent it being stolen? It is irresponsible to expose a site without providing a guard and/or security systems to protect it. If money is not dedicated to that, or volunteers employed, then it should remain undug. There is the technology to provide proper protection for even very large sites”. (John Hooker)

And:

The only solution to the looting problem is better methods in the countries where this is happening, and that can never be a total solution. All it can possibly do is to lessen the instances of it back to pre 1970 levels, or perhaps a little better than that”. (John Hooker)

Or:

I simply do not know how many times I must repeat myself that unless the governments of the source countries take some harsh measures to guard every one of their archaeological sites, the illegal digging will go on forever and you and people like you CANNOT do anything about it”. (Farhad Assar)

It is a good job that we have not reached such a desperate situation as to need to post armed guards to defend every environmental resource we value, in the bluebell woods, nature reserves and wild places. We only need them to keep poachers out of game reserves. What does that say about the antiquities market?

3) “Archaeologists must sort out foreign social problems to curb looting”. Then we have those who say looting will take place as long as there is poverty in the world. If the portable antiquity collectors do not buy these things and give them a good home, they will be “sold for scrap” and “turned into tourist trinkets”. [While this argument may apply to metal (uncorroded copper alloys, lead, silver and gold) it does not apply to Nok terracottas, Southeast Asian Buddha heads and sculpture fragments, or cuneiform tablets]. Anyhow, the adherents of this line of argument are clear, the archaeologist concerned with the circulation of illicitly excavated archaeological material in the markets of the developed countries must deal with all the other social problems in the region.

If you genuinely care about the ancient heritage of people in poor and/or developing countries […], then please begin educating those people properly, not by dumping on them your unwanted rubbish, but through the opportunities you create for them to get the same level of education you, yourself, received. Then, and only then, they may begin to think that there is some sense in saving their ancient dog- or cat-bones, coins, vases, jewellery, bronze sculptures, palaces, etc. In other words, find the root causes of the irreversible damage to the archaeological sites all over the world, including the effects of illicit and clandestine digging, and do not put the blame for what is going on in this respect at the doors of coin collectors and dealers alone. (Farhad Assar)

And:

If the advocates of protecting the historical assets of all nations are sincere about their good intentions, they must begin by educating the poor and providing for the needy in those countries in order to encourage them to appreciate and protect their cultural heritage. Then, private collecting and dealing will begin to slow down, become unprofitable, and eventually die out. (Farhad Assar)

I suspect these collectors pride themselves that by buying artefacts dug out of foreign sites they are doing their little bit to solve the problems of world poverty (but see Brodie 1998), as well as giving the displaced artefacts a "good home". Nevertheless I agree that an important approach is education of local populations persuading them that their cultural heritage has a value and is worthy of their attention and care. Mind you, what in that situation they will then think of all those that took advantage of them now and took lots of it away for their own foreign collections may only be imagined.

These three arguments have a common theme, its not the collectors’ fault that there is a market for antiquities, they claim that there is nothing they or anyone except the archaeologist or governments can do to stop it. If the archaeologist or foreign government will not adopt what collectors like the ones cited above insist is the “obvious” solution, then it is not the fault of the collector that no progress can be made with the destruction of the archaeological heritage by exploitation as a source of collectables for various people's entertainment and profit. It seems to me however that there is some rather obvious special pleading going on here.

References
Brodie Neil 1998, 'Pity the poor middlemen' Culture Without Context, Issue 3, Autumn 1998.

Renfrew, Colin 1993 Collectors are the real looters. Archaeology 46(3):16-17