Stealing somebody else's past

Over on Mark Durney’s “Art theft Central” blog is a thought-provoking post made yesterday about “Motivations Behind Art Forgery”. It is based around a 2005 paper "Criminal and Victim Profiles in Art Theft: Motive, Opportunity and Repeat Victimisation" by Dr. Simon MacKenzie of the Department of Criminology at the University of Glasgow. This is about people who take works of art from walls and walk off with them depriving the rest of us of them. I could not help however in thinking that some of what he says also applies to those that collect what they see as “art” which has come from the destruction of archaeological contexts which is a common heritage. Durney thus summarises McKenzie’s arguments with page numbers in brackets:

Mackenzie categorizes art thieves as being either "art-motivated" or "profit-motivated." The art-motivated thief, “wants the art for his own personal possession. He wants to live with it, view it in detail, repeatedly and at his leisure... art-motivated thieves will therefore perhaps focus on the ways museums diminish the viewing experience through crowded rooms, transparent screens around the artworks, and inappropriate illumination. They might also consider the love with which they will cherish the work to outweigh the loss to the museum or the public (3). Conversely, Mackenzie states the profit-motivated thief is less likely to work alone and is more likely to damage the art in carrying out the theft as such destruction is seen as an "acceptable consequence of a fast and effective theft (4)." Additionally, he goes on to discuss how "the work of the fence is central to the effective disposal of stolen goods (6)." Profit-motivated thieves require these intermediaries because fences, "often possess social and marketing skills which thieves do not, and are thus able to access non-criminal buyers who can neutralise any suspicions of the illicit status of the goods with reference to the presentability of the fence, and the legitimate business face he sets up (6)."

The “Profit-motivated thief” finds its obvious parallel in the portable antiquities world in the artefact hunter/looter. The “fence”, well that is obviously a parallel to those oh-so respectable antiquity dealers that have the social and marketing skills, though the objects they deal in are sometimes potentially or in reality of less-than-legitimate origin.

McKenzie does make the point that the buyers in his case are "non-criminal", but what about the collector who does not care where the object comes from and will not enquire into whether it was legitimately obtained because he “wants the art[efact] for his own personal possession, wants to live with it, view it in detail, repeatedly and at his leisure” who bangs on about “the ways museums diminish the viewing experience” and who “consider the love with which they will cherish the work to outweigh the loss to the […] public”? Does that not sound a little familiar?

"Flawed analysis" of a Stanford "Saddamite"?

The Stanford Archaeology Center seems to be planning to run a series of pieces on research into different sectors of the antiquities market. As may have been expected, the naysayers in the antiquity collecting world are not best pleased to see Neil Brodie’s account of what he found when he looked into "The Market in Iraqi Antiquities 1980-2008." Washington lawyer and portable antiquities collector Peter Tompa raisesa number of “issues that become readily apparent even after a rather cursory reading” and Californian artefact seller Dave Welsh accuses the scholar of having conducted a “flawed analysis” (though adducing no information of his own – simply relying on the Washington lawyer’s opinions). Let’s have a look at them referring to Tompa's original seven points.

I am not quite sure what Peter Tompa is accusing Neil Brodie of (point 2) when he writes:

Brodie appears to be one of those willing to overlook Saddam Hussein's crimes just because he spent lavishly on archaeology.

What is that supposed to mean? The paper is not a history of Iraq 1980-2008, or the reasons for G.W. Bush Junior’s deadly military jaunt over there. I fail to see where in Brodie’s paper Tompa expects to see his obliging denunciation of the Iraqi president deposed by US aggression. Tompa seems to have a chip on his shoulder about archaeologists who worked in Iraq, and this seems to have rubbed off in his assessment of Neil Brodie - unfairly I think.

Point 3 (“tales of looting of Iraqi sites post 2003 have been greatly exaggerated”) is a moot point. Tompa in his blog and elsewhere places more credence on these reports than many other observers. In any case Tompa misunderstands here, as elsewhere, the purpose of Brodie’s analysis.

Tompa reckons (point 1) that “large numbers of cuneiform tablets were sold in department stores around the United States during the early years of the last century”. To explain this, the reader should know that US department stores like Macey’s used to have collectors’ departments. I wonder if the Hecht stores also did? Anyhow, Tompa reckons that “Presumably, many of these tablets have lost their provenance by now”. This makes two assumptions, the first is that the lumps of clay bought in the early twentieth century and scattered in homes all over the USA actually survived (and were not thrown out unrecognized by heirs of the original purchaser), secondly that the collectors who bought them did not take care to preserve that information. This is important as the ACCG [of which Tompa is or was the president] stands firm on the position that the collectors of ancient antiquities are responsible people who curate information about the antiquities of which they are stewards. The department store antiquities argument seems to me a red herring in the context of Brodie's analysis.

Tompa questions whether sales figures of Christies’ and Sotheby’s represent an increase in the number of antiquities coming onto the market at the turn of the 1990s because “shouldn't we see that spike in the same year?” (point 4). It seems that the lawyer is here (as in the last point) a victim of his own “rather cursory reading”. If he had read Brodie’s “efforts” (sic) more carefully, he might appreciate that his own interpretation is at fault. In his point five Tompa suggests that the figures and tables showing a “limited number of lots available for sale” and their “generally modest value” belie an “oft heard claim” that he cannot be bothered to reference. I suggest that Tompa spends a little more time reading the captions to those figures and tables and putting them in the context of the whole market in antiquities in the whole period covered by Brodie’s paper. Modest? I hardly think so in the circumstances.

Point seven explains away a problem for the antiquities market - which is said (by those who participate in it) to be largely in “legitimate objects” and the cowboys selling illicit material are a “minority which gets the trade a bad name”. Brodie shows (p. 2) that after the adoption of UNSCR 1483 the number of Iraqi items on the market in general dropped sharply. Brodie suggests that this is because “a large part of the unprovenanced material on the market really had been illegally exported”. Not so, says Tompa, the answer is simple: “In the climate of the times […] many dealers were scared to sell any Iraqi antiquity provenanced or not”. Let’s get this straight, a US dealer has provenanced artefacts with clear documented pedigrees going back to the 1950s… and they resist the temptation to sell them to knowledge-hungry collectors in Bush’s America, out of fear? As Mr Tompa says: " I am not sure this follows logically”.

Point seven about the “the increased popularity of the Internet as a sales tool” really is pointless, one cannot have increased sales of (authentic) Iraqi antiquities if there are not actually more such antiquities on the market – no matter how they are sold.

Peter Tompa restricts his attention to the first part of Brodie’s text, misses out totally the points made about Barakat Gallery cuneiform tablets and the Larsa Nebuchadnezzar bricks (Larsa being one of the sites which was “not looted” according to information in the art world given much credence by Tompa). I suggest that antiquity collectors should give Brodie’s text more than a “rather cursory reading” and reflect more deeply on its implications than lawyer and antiquity collector Peter Tompa seems willing to do. Rather than a "flawed analysis" I think we have here the products of a flawed reading.

Photo: cuneiform tablet (Richard Benson)

The US trade in coins stripped from ancient (foreign) sites

The Hellenic Society for Archaeology and Law has put Nathan Elkins' lecture "The Ancient Coin Trade in the USA: Scale and Structure" on their website. Short, succinct and shocking. I guess more personal attacks on its author will be on their way in "response" from the ACCG and their hangers-on.

Underwater convention - thanks Barbados

On January 2nd after Barbados deposited its instrument of acceptance as the 20th member three months ago, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage entered into force.

The Convention aiming to ensure more effective safeguarding of submerged shipwrecks and underwater ruins was adopted in 2001 by UNESCO’s General Conference as a reaction to the looting and destruction of underwater cultural heritage.

The convention is based on four main principles: a) the obligation to preserve underwater cultural heritage, b) in situ preservation, i.e. under water, as a preferred option, c) no commercial exploitation of this heritage and d) cooperation among States to protect this precious legacy, to promote training in underwater archeology, and to raise public awareness of the importance of sunken cultural property.

Countries party to the Convention (in chronological order of acceptance/ratification: Panama, Bulgaria, Croatia, Spain, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Nigeria, Lithuania, Mexico, Paraguay, Portugal, Lebanon, Saint Lucia, Romania, Cambodia, Ecuador, Ukraine, Cuba, Montenegro, Slovenia, Barbados.
United Kingdom - no,
United States - no. Why not?

photo: Wreck of the Umbria - photo UNESCO

Australian antiquities dealer held

Antiquities dealer Frank Bottaro was recently arrested at Cairo airport bound for Thailand reportedly with a suitcase full of 5.5 kg of animal mummies and religious figurines “wrapped as gifts” (Looting matters Australian Antiquities Dealer Arrested In Egypt). There is a photo of the gentleman here (Selma Milovanovic Egypt could jail Australian dealer for 15 years widely syndicated, for example, Sydney Morning Herald December 26, 2008).

We also learn from several of these reports that Mr Bottaro has been running a shop B.C. Galleries, dealing in "Ancient Art and Antiquities Tribal Art and Ethnographica" since 1976. (Aaron Langmaid 'Accused mummy smuggler Frank Bottaro an antiquities dealer' Herald Sun December 26 2008).

The dealer's webpage is worth a visit. The homepage says: “Welcome to our online commercial gallery dedicated to the art and artifacts of all cultures and regions. This website is one of the largest of its kind on the Internet”. Hmm. It does seem quite substantial, even if the web design leaves something to be desired. There are 367 ancient Egyptian objects (mostly very small, pocket size one might say). Skimming through this category produces only a few which have any kind of indication of provenance and legal export. Two are labelled as “Christie's London, October 4” (year?), though its not clear if that is a parallel or provenance, three items (head knocked off Old Kingdom statues) “Ex German Collection, collected during World War II, Giza plateau.” A shabti labeled “Ex Gordon Stevens Collection”. Not very impressive. The Mesopotamian section does not fare much better, including as Neil Brodie noted an avoidance of using the term “Iraq” as an indication where and otherwise unprovenienced object comes from. While on the website, don’t neglect to visit the “bargain lots” (21 pages) – where most of the metal detected finds from Europe are. How many trashed sites do they represent to merely provide an antipodean dealer's cut-price pieces of the past?

Every item sold through the Antiquities (Ancient Art) categories on this website is accompanied by a certificate of authenticity. These pieces are guaranteed to be genuine, unconditionally and without time limit. The certificate of authenticity indicates the culture, age, material, function, condition and dimensions of the piece and includes a photograph of the item.

I cannot however see a single word there about export licences.

Selma Milovanovic cites a revealing interview with the accused man apparently from "The Age" in 2002, making him out to be an Indiana Jones clone.

He had sold his lucrative taxidermy business - which had supported his passion for archaeology - in 1993 and went to Egypt to hunt ancient artefacts. […] He said he had more than 70 scouts - people who sourced antiques and art - around Middle East, China and New Zealand. "Most dealers specialise in selected civilisations," he said. "We are interested in any cultures across the ages." He told stories of running for his life in tribal lands while searching for prized ancient art. He spoke of his early treasure-hunting days, when he apparently made friends with many desert tribes likely to be surrounded by buried artefacts where they were living. He also told of having cheated death several times when unfriendly locals heard about his activities. Over 10 years he built his business enough to become a successful exporter. "About 70 per cent of my pieces go overseas," he said in 2002. "I've gone from struggling to make ends meet to being a rich man - which is more fun."

No doubt. It would be interesting to know whether those "unfriendly locals" were angered by the Ossie treasure hunter carting off their heritage or annoyed at the competition. This is one to watch.

See also: John Elder Treasure hunting adventurer out of luck, The Age December 28, 2008

.

Neil Brodie on the market in Iraqi antiquities 1980-2008

Neil Brodie has recently released a draft version of a paper on ‘The market in Iraqi antiquities 1980-2008’ which makes interesting reading as it discusses the fluctuations in the antiquities trade against the political background and in particular various UN resolutions. In the period August 1990 to April 2003, despite sanctions, "the quantities of unprovenanced artefacts being offered for sale did not diminish, in fact if anything they increased in the years running up to 2003" (page 2). He notes (p. 3) that:

Since April 2003, the sale of unprovenanced Iraqi artifacts at public auction in New York and London has stopped entirely, perhaps because of the widespread negative publicity that followed on from the break-in at the National Museum, or
because of UNSCR 1483. The fact that unprovenanced Iraqi artifacts suddenly disappeared from the auction market after the adoption of this resolution is an important one as it suggests that before 2003 a large part of the unprovenanced material on the market really had been illegally exported. Otherwise, it could
have continued to be sold quite openly after that date without contravening UNSCR 1483

I was taken by Brodie's attempt to analyse the economic aspects of the sales. Despite their absence from the major auction houses however trade of Iraqi goods had not stopped (p. 4).

After 2003, outside the auction market, Iraqi artifacts continued to be openly traded on the Internet. On one day – 5 December 2006 – there were at least 55 websites offering antiquities for sale and that might have been expected to sell Iraqi objects. In fact 23 of those sites were offering for sale or had recently sold cylinder seals and/or cuneiform tablets. In total there were 78 cylinder seals and 137 cuneiform tablets listed (Table 1). […] Hardly any of the cuneiform tablets were advertised with a verifiable provenance.

This tendency was also discussed here. Brodie noted (p. 4) that the Internet market had apparently increased in volume between 2006 and 2008.

Stonehenge webcam

The Stonehenge webcam shows the strength of public interest in archaeology in Britain today. "Please limit viewing time to 5 minutes so everyone can enjoy viewing the web cam".

Makes a change from complaining about "metal detectorists" I guess.