Who should own Gandhi's glasses - and why?

Dr A. Srivathsan has an interesting article in the Hindu ("Who owns antiquity?" 15th March) which draws on the recent story of the sale of Gandhi memorabilia (relics?) to discuss some wider issues:

The world of antiquities is a murky and complex one where ownership is a contested space. Many Indian sculptures (and pieces of architecture) of immense historical value are still languishing in Western museums. In this context, it was naïve to expect Gandhi’s memorabilia to be returned voluntarily. [...] In the hypocritical, complex world of antiquities, the question who rightfully owns the object is never taken seriously, leave alone answered properly.

Worth a read and a think. In connection with this latest sale it is interesting to see collectors once again adopting a holier-than-thou stance with whole nations and their governments, Pierre Berge declares he will halt the selling of the items he's flogging off (an infamous rat and rabbit) if China will "free Tibet", the Gandhi seller wanted to make a deal to force the Indian government to spend more on health care. This seems to be analogous to the dealers' lobby declaring that they are striking a blow for "free enterprise" in the "source countries" with their "restrictive antiquities preservation legislation" by buying goods no-questions-asked and suggesting that the way to "stop the looting" is to drop the restrictive laws that make it illegal. Yeah right.

Bring on the clowns again

Michael Jackson announced last week that he will be coming back on stage to pay off his debts. Peter Tompa has just announced that another (ideologically) bankrupt group will also be making a comeback. He reports that the former members of the American Council for Cultural Policy “the only cultural organization to have had effective discussions with the Departments of Defense and State in the period immediately prior to the beginning of the Iraq War in 2001” (sic) have begun to discuss its reactivation to help deal with the flood of antiquities that have been flowing steadily but illicitly out of Aghanistan in the wake of "Operation Enduring Freedom", the US-led occupation. The ACCP is the sister act to the coin dealers' lobbying comedy troupe the ACCG. It has been described by some as “little more than a lobbying group for the antiquities trade” in general. It was within its ranks that a number of the hilarious one-liners which are now classic staples of recent pro-collecting standup acts were apparently born. It remains to be seen if the ACCP attempt a comeback whether they stay with their former scriptwriters and repeat the time-tested jokes of yesteryear, or whether they will reach out to new audiences with fresh material.

To add spice to his little piece of showbiz gossip, Tompa alleges that the ACCP act will be returning to the stage because of something Larry Rothman wrote on SAFEcorner. In my opinion, Mr Tompa should try and get together with metal detectorist Gary Brun some time, they’d probably make a great double act.

Vignette: Michael Jackson (reputedly)

Cuno makes myths

“Science news” (“the magazine of the society for science and the public”) has a highly misleading interview by Janet Raloff with James Cuno. This of addresses none of the wider issues but is largely devoted to a criticism of the implications of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property which Cuno says “hinders access for museums” in the US and Europe to desirable collectable items of unclear provenance. Oh dear.

This article seems a clear case where uninformed “science journalist” met uninformed art institute director. Firstly the interview makes reference to something called “ the UNESCO 1970 treaty on looting of archaeological sites”… which not surprisingly has “not stopped looting of sites” (because there is of course no such UNESCO "treaty"). Hmm. It is a shame that the Oxford Archaeology team writing the report on the illegal use of metal detectors in the United Kingdom or those currently trying to combat the illegal artefact hunting in Germany did not speak to Mr Cuno, who "knows" and would have told them not only is looting on the increase, but illegal artefact hunters “are desperate people doing desperate things. In situations of a failed economy, a failed government, the absence of civil society, internecine warfare, sectarian violence, drought — whatever — conditions emerge that can create pressures for looting.” Yep, that’s the UK and Germany in a nutshell, spot on Mr Cuno.

Cuno says that if ethical museums have stopped buying items of dubious provenance, “like water on a leaky roof, looted artifacts are finding the path of least resistance to a buyer somewhere”. So according to Cuno, it is no-questions-asked private collectors, unethical museums and those that sell to them that are now financing the looting. That is what some of us have been saying all along. This has been strenuously denied by dealers and collectors of no-questions-asked ancient “collectables” (aka decontextualised archaeological evidence from irreparably damaged archaeological contexts). We have recently seen a rash of Cuno-wannabes in the portable collecting world repeating his various generalizations and platitudes as mantras since the publication of his “who owns antiquity” with its throwback arguments. Let’s see if they take this one on board too.

In the “Science news” interview, Cuno discusses why he claims that “the treaty” (sic) “gives a false view of history.”….:

The preface of UNESCO 1970 implies there is no difference between the nationals of a modern state and the ancient peoples that made things that have been excavated from the soils of modern states. The argument seems to be that these people share a “collective genius”—one that might be racial or ethnic or cultural. And that the shared genius is particular to the people, both ancient and modern. But that argument was made by politicians, not by scientists.

In discussing issues with the pro-collecting lobby that we are constantly faced with special pleading, unreflexive platitudes, self-delusion and half truths. We seem here too to be dealing with a hopeless case of just that. On reading that anybody who knows what the 1970 Convention actually says might even be forgiven for asking whether the director of Chicago’s art institute can actually read. This is what the preface of the 1970 UNESCO convention on Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property actually SAYS:

The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, meeting in Paris from 12 October to 14 November 1970, at its sixteenth session,

Recalling the importance of the provisions contained in the Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Co-operation, adopted by the General Conference at its fourteenth session,

Considering that the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural and educational purposes increases the knowledge of the civilization of Man, enriches the cultural life of all peoples and inspires mutual respect and appreciation among nations,

Considering that cultural property constitutes one of the basic elements of civilization and national culture, and that its true value can be appreciated only in relation to the fullest possible information regarding is origin, history and traditional setting,

Considering that it is incumbent upon every State to protect the cultural property existing within its territory against the dangers of theft, clandestine excavation, and illicit export,

Considering that, to avert these dangers, it is essential for every State to become increasingly alive to the moral obligations to respect its own cultural heritage and that of all nations,

Considering that, as cultural institutions, museums, libraries and archives should ensure that their collections are built up in accordance with universally recognized moral principles,

Considering that the illicit import, export and transfer of
ownership of cultural property is an obstacle to that understanding between nations which it is part of UNESCO’s mission to promote by recommending to interested States, international conventions to this end,

Considering that the protection of cultural heritage can be effective only if organized both nationally and internationally among States working in close co-operation,

Considering that the UNESCO General Conference adopted a Recommendation to this effect in 1964,

Having before It further proposals on the means of prohibiting
and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property, a question which is on the agenda for the session as item 19,

Having decided, at its fifteenth session, that this question should be made the subject of an international convention,

Adopts this Convention on the fourteenth day of November 1970.

Now where actually does it say that “there is no difference between the nationals of a modern state and the ancient peoples that made things that have been excavated from the soils of modern states” where is there a reference here to any “collective genius” (sic) racial or ethnic or cultural or that this is particular to the people, both ancient and modern? It seems to me that this convention is talking about spatial rather than ethnic aspects, in terms of public property rather than Ahnenerbe.

What Cuno is reported as saying in the "Science news" article is pure fantasy. It is disturbing to see this glib myth making still breaking out months after his earlier efforts to articulate his atavistic views, despite the numerous reviews and discussions of Cuno’s book where this has been pointed out. In fact, if one actually READS the preface of the 1970 Convention, it is clear it has precisely the same aims as Cuno says his universal antiquity collections have. What is preventing it from being as effective as it might is the current unaccountable no-questions-asked trade in portable antiquities.

vignette from "obrazky.pl"

How It Happens: State Archaeologist

How It Happens: State Archaeologist. The author of this brief video suggests that Minnesota's state archaeologists (one guy and an assistant) are so overworked and under-resourced that they might need to adopt an "Indiana Jones approach" (whatever the author of the video understands that to be). I personally think that US collectors who spend time lobbying for no-questions-asked collecting of portable antiquities taken from other countries because they are "so passionate about the past" might do more good by first campaigning to make sure the US can look after its own historical record to the degree that local law requires before they insist on telling other countries what they should and should not do. We find lobbying groups like the ACCG criticising "foreign governments" for their policies over heritage, without recognising that there are also serious problems in their own heritage backyard. Of course if they do not collect arrowheads and potsherds, but shinier geegaws like coins from hoards, then they may not care. Let them at least then be honest with the rest of us, that their concern is not for the "heritage" of the foreign lands they have never set foot in, but their ability to get their hands back in the USA on the stuff they want.

Perhaps US portable antiquity collectors should all be campaigning to BE the Indiana Jones which the video suggests would save America's archaeological heritage, out there with their metal detectors and shovels, saving theheritage of their homeland before somebody else builds something on it.

We see the ACCG calling for all nations under the sun except the UK to repeal their antiquity preservation laws and empty their museums to allow its members to buy shiny geegaws for their collection - well, let us see them FIRST campaign for the US to repeal its laws in the same way. Let us see them urge that the USA sets the example. Let them apply exactly the same arguments they apply to foreign countries first to their own - using the same justifications. What would US public opinion make of that?

And then let them ask themselves whether public opinion in the "source countries" would not react in the same way to their propositions.

What is in a name?

Dealers and collectors of antiquities are constantly mocking the use by the media of the term which suggests that archaeological material removed from the soil in a specific region is the cultural property of a modern state. Every time there is a big news story about this, the forums are abuzz with Cuno-esque derision of “nationalist” sentiment and worse. The fault here however is the sloppy writing of our journalists.

The case is well illustrated by the constant battle the Polish foreign office has with dozy foreign journalists who keep writing of “Polish extermination camps” when they mean Nazi extermination camps which now lie in Poland. I see this morning that an Italian newspaper did the same. Let's have a bit more precision of language.

The remains associated with these complexes comprise a material heritage that surely must be preserved, must be linked with the non-material. Since the majority of these sites lie within the post 1945 frontiers of Poland, it is that country that has to bear the burden of organizing it, and finding funds for it, but it is not solely Poland’s heritage. They are not “Polish” camps. That does not mean that Poland should not be supported in her efforts to look after these remains and allow their study in context. In the same way the archaeological record of a country should not be despoiled by uncaring dealers and collectors just because the modern population is not perceived (by the foreign collectors) as having any genetic link with the creators of the material. The Cuno-wannabes fail to notice that "Power of Place" is a far more more important concept in today's global conservation theory as notions of "Ahnenerbe". They are chasing the wrong non-material values.

A Code of Ethics for Collectors of Ancient Artifacts

The antiquity collecting milieu is demonstrably full of Flat Earthers, conspiracy theorists and Deniers who persist in resisting any change to the current status quo which allows looting to go unchecked, and who are egged on by the dealers with most to lose. They shield themselves from criticism with reference to "reputation" (undefined) and "codes of practice" of the dealers, these however are manifestly unsatisfactory safeguards. There are however a group of collectors who are capable of thinking about the issues themselves who have seen through the smokescreen of false arguments and posturing of the dealers' lobby and are concerned to establish an independent idea of the ethics of collecting - a modification of the "Good Collector " model.

Yesterday on the Yahoo Ancient Artifacts forum a group of antiquities collectors published a document that has been compiled on the basis of several months discussion on that forum. It is a "Code of Ethics for Collectors of Ancient Artefacts" - still a draft and open to discussion. It would be good to see some input and comment from archaeological bodies (such as the PAS) and conservation groups. The text reads:

A Code of Ethics for Collectors of Ancient Artifacts
Version 1 1st March 2009
This is a voluntary code, reflecting the personal conviction of those who adhere to it. It concerns actions now and in the future, and aims to inform both new and experienced collectors. Although it is clearly in every collector’s own interest to be able to separate the fake from the authentic, keep good records and care properly for artifacts, these guidelines are an attempt to go further by outlining commonsense standards to protect our shared interests, and particularly the finite and fragile archaeological resource.

(1) Protect our archaeological heritage and uphold the law
Only buy artifacts which you have reason to believe have been obtained and are offered in accordance with all national laws.
• Ask the vendor for all relevant paperwork relating to provenance, export etc.
• Take extra care if collecting particular classes of object which have been subjected to wide-scale recent looting.

(2) Check your source
• Verify a vendor’s reputation independently before buying. Assure yourself that they are using due diligence in their trading practices, and do not support those who knowingly sell fakes as authentic or offer items of questionable provenance.

(3) Collect sensitively
• Consider the implications of acquiring items which may be of religious or social significance to others.

(4) Recognise your role as custodian
• Do your utmost to ensure the wellbeing of the objects in your care.
• Consider the condition of artifacts prior to purchase and whether you will be able to carry out any necessary conservation or repairs. Any intrusive operation should ideally be carried out by a competent professional.
• Maintain and update records relating to each artifact, including its provenance. Make sure these records can be connected to the relevant object by a layman.
• Only buy from vendors who do the same.

(5) Keep artifacts in one piece and consider the significance of groups of objects
• Do not dismember any item, or acquire a fragment which you believe to have been separated from a larger object except through natural means.
• Consider the implications of buying an item from an associated assemblage and the impact this could have on study.

(6) Promote further study
• Liaise, where possible, with the academic and broader communities about your artifacts. Significant objects, in particular, should not be withheld from study. Try to find out more about the artifacts you own and their context.

(7) Dispose of artifacts responsibly
• Do your best to ensure that none of the above guidelines are infringed by the way you dispose of your artifacts.
• Pass on all information about each piece, particularly its provenance, and include as much original documentation as possible (even if the prices are blacked out).
• Give an honest description of any repairs or restoration.
• Promote responsible custodianship to the new owner and other collectors.
• Give thought to the disposal of your collection in the event of your death, and leave clear instructions as to how it should be sold or donated.

I think the creation of this Code is a great step forward. Above all it seems to me that it places respect for the remains of the past above the self-centred interests connected with their posession and exploitation. That is an important difference between it and previous "codes". The text as it stands is explicit and allows none of the weasel-wording favoured by the dealers. If 80% of portable collecting within a decade was being done by people actually adhering (not merely paying lip service) to the principles embodied here, the cowboy dealers of undocumented material will have to change their current no-questions-asked business practices and the looters and their middlemen will have to find other markets. At the moment this Code is just a proposal from a small group on an Internet forum, the next question is how it could become the credo of an increasing number of collectors over a wider area. Also, how many dealers will support it?

Compteur d'objets prélevés illégalement avec des détecteurs de métaux

The French heritage lobby group HAPPAH have just put online a counter which is equivalent to the one of Heritage Action for Britain which I have mentioned here before. Their "Estimation basse du nombre d'objets prélevés illégalement depuis le décret du 19 août 1991" .... "représente le nombre d’artéfacts intéressant l’art, l’histoire, la préhistoire et l’archéologie prélevé illégalement par les utilisateurs clandestins de détecteurs de métaux en France." At the moment the counter stands at 9,105,239 items, so it would seem that illegal artefact hunting is not a problem restricted to the United Kingdom and Bulgaria.

The authors assure the visitors to their website that, like the Heritage Action one, "Il est basé délibérément sur les estimations les plus basses. Le nombre d’utilisateurs illégaux de détecteur de métaux en activité a été évalué pour ce compteur à 10000. Ce chiffre est nettement inférieur à la seule statistique officielle datant de 1997 (70 000, rapport du conseil de la concurrence)".

The counter works on a slightly different principle from the Heritage Action one, for which the PAS somewhat selective idea of "recordable artefact" was used (nowhere actually formally defined but reconstructable from what is included on and excluded from the database). HAPPAH (perfectly logically in fact) use a more archaeology-based definition based on le jolly old Convention Européenne pour la Protection du Patrimoine Archéologique (you know, the one Britain signed too but then failed to actually put fully into action). So:”Un clou de sandale, même fragmenté, est au même titre que le vase de Vix un objet archéologique. l’Article Ier, Définition du Patrimoine Archéologique, […] sont considérés comme éléments du patrimoine archéologique tous les vestiges, biens et autres traces de l’existence de l’humanité dans le passé, […].” Fair enough.

Furthermore they reveal that in terms of overall statistics “Nous avons fait le choix de compter seulement un seul artéfact prélevé par semaine et par utilisateur, ce qui est très peu comparé à nos décomptes sur des collections particulières. Ce qui porte à 107 le nombre d’objets trouvés chaque heure durant la journée et 12 objets par heure durant la nuit. Nous avons en effet choisit de ralentir le compteur durant la nuit en estimant que les prélèvements se font surtout le jour. Mais on connaît malheureusement de nombreux cas de pillages nocturnes sur les sites archéologiques". I am sure it's only the denser British metal detectorists that need explaining that nobody is saying that each detectorist in France goes out once a week, finds one object and packs up and goes home. This is a statistical average based on what the organization knows about average find rates (which I understand vary from region to region of the country anyway). As a result, HAPPAH estimate that " Au minimum ce sont 520 000 objets qui sont pillés chaque année !" Half a million illegally obtained artefacts a year, many no doubt entering private collections and the illicit market. That is if there are "only" 10 000 detector using artefact hunters in France.

Not surprisingly HAPPAH want something done about the failure of law enforcement bodies to do anything about this illegal plunder and the ownership of the proceeds. I expect the British and the US "ancient coineys" will be saying "give them a PAS and let the looting go on legally". That fails to address the problem of the physical erosion of the record.