Do-Righters Don't Collect Antiquities?

Antiquities crime is still a significant problem in many countries, but particularly Southeast Asia ('The real cost of looting', Frontier, August 03, 2017).

There are many reasons for this: poverty, porous borders, the region’s rich cultural history, weak law enforcement, and the relative lack of archaeological work that has been conducted – to name but a few. When we think of looting, it’s often large or particularly significant items that spring to mind. But as Phacharaphorn Phanomvan, a PhD Candidate in economic history at the University of Oxford, wrote in a recent article for the Tea Circle blog, even smaller, less obviously valuable objects have their market. Phanomvan wrote that beads from Dawei and elsewhere in Tanintharyi Region have become popular among buyers in Thailand and some other countries, not just for their appearance but also perceived spiritual power. They are being sold online and even in markets in Bangkok, which has long been a clearing-house for antiquities looted from around the region (as well as many more reproductions being passed off as antiquities). This is about more than the loss of a country’s physical heritage. In and of themselves, the things that are often being taken – beads, coins, small amulets – have little monetary value, and would probably not find pride of place in a museum. 

We are all familiar with the self-serving arguments of the dealers - people who profit from these sales - that what should be being preserved are only the 'items of cultural significance', this totally avoids the main issue:

But the looting process is highly destructive. Looters, be they area residents or more professional outfits, have little interest in objects that are not valuable or desirable in some way, and will throw them away like rubbish. Their methods result in more than just the loss of historic items. The looting damages the integrity of archaeological sites that often have not been properly surveyed, or even studied at all. Even if items are recovered, the context in which they were excavated cannot be recreated. To an archaeologist or anthropologist, the item itself is not as valuable as what it can tell us about the people who created, used, traded or discarded it. This is the real loss from looting: the opportunity, when the resources are available, to learn more about Myanmar’s many cultures. In particular, non-Burmese cultures, which have often been neglected by the authorities. In the meantime, Myanmar and its neighbours clearly need to do more to stem looting and the illicit trade in antiquities. The key is to diminish or eliminate demand, because if there are no buyers there will be no looting. That will require enforcement, education – and more people, like the Bodles, who make the effort to do the right thing.

 But a moment's perusal of the literature shows perfectly clearly that few collectors are making any effort to perceive what is right, their attention is almost always focused on what it merely legal (or not-exactly-illegal), like the collectors who are going through a court case to hang onto something they bought which they now know there is every reason to believe was looted from a storeroom in a civil war.

US Collector Wants to hang on to Relic With Disputed Past

From New York Times

The Beierwaltes bought the head from a dealer in London in 1996 for more than $1 million and then sold it to another collector, Michael H. Steinhardt, in 2010. Mr. Steinhardt lent the relic to the Met that year, but after learning that Lebanon was disputing its provenance, he asked the Beierwaltes to take it back and compensate him.

Seven years ago.

The Art Market’s Informal Economy

In an interesting text which paints some of the background to the 'ancient art' and antiquities trade, Prof. John Zarobell describes 'What Actually Happens in the Art Market’s Informal Economy' (Artsy editorial August 2nd 2017). The term is used to describe economic transactions that are unrecorded, literally off the books.

I use the term “informal economy” here to refer to any transaction that is unrecorded, untaxed, and unregulated but not explicitly illegal. This is also described as the “gray market” to distinguish these economic activities from the explicitly illegal “black market.” The number of synonyms alone testifies to the prevalence and diversity of this economic sphere, but the question that everyone wants to answer is: How big is it? [...]  estimates can mask the interpenetration of the formal and informal domains of the economy: it is impossible to entirely pull these two domains apart. But one can consider a number of characteristics of the informal economy when assessing the size and the nature of the global art market, which blends the black and gray markets with legitimate, if less regulated, art market. Given present offshore financial mechanisms employed by high-net-worth individuals who invest in art, it would be difficult for a seller of a work of art to determine whether the money transferred to cover the artwork was “clean,” because money launderers are known to employ the tactic of “layering” to hide the origins of assets and blend “dirty” money with legitimate investments. Artists, too, are the perfect example of an unregulated labor pool, performing work at home and thereby evading workplace regulations, consigning and sometimes selling it without a formal contract, and working on the margins of the formal economy.

The same would go for artefact hunters.

Spotted by Emiline Smith‏

A reminder to those studying unprovenanced antiquities:

Michael Press‏ @MichaelDPress  4 godz. A reminder to those studying unprovenanced antiquities:
 You're (almost certainly) working on stolen property.

How Dodgy are those Artefacts 'Legally Bought' from Israeli Dealers?

More fallout from the Hobby Lobby scandal ('Arrest of Jerusalem antiquities dealers opens a smuggling Pandora’s Box' Times of Israel, August 1, 2017):

In a conversation with The Times of Israel, Eitan Klein, deputy director of the IAA’s Unit for the Prevention of Antiquities Looting, said the case is significant in that it highlights the fraudulent use of Israeli law in the dealing of artifacts looted across the Middle East. As Israel is the only country in the region that legally allows antiquities commerce, dealers of looted antiquities and smugglers from neighboring countries make use of the Jewish state as a clearance point for resale in order to give their wares a veneer of legitimacy. “In all other countries — Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq — it is illegal to deal antiquities. The problem is that the dealers that we gave permission to deal antiquities are using our law to deal in looted artifacts,” said Klein. The position of the IAA is that antiquities sales should be forbidden in Israel, said Klein, and it is in exploratory talks with the Justice Ministry to investigate legal options after twice failing in the Knesset to amend the existing law.

The main issue in the current case against the Israeli dealers arresed a few days ago, apparently in connection with the Hobby Lobby case is

unreported tax and forged documents on the sales, because over 90 percent of the sales were done abroad. The suspected purchase and sales of looted artifacts in Dubai that were then sent to America are not the purview of the IAA. However, sales that were sent through Israel directly to the US were allegedly made with forged documents, and those are being investigated by Israeli police. The IAA is currently investigating the dozens of unreported artifacts found in the dealers’ houses and shops.  According to Israeli law, all found artifacts must be reported and turned over to the IAA within 50 days. The punishment for looting is incarceration for between seven months and a year, said Klein. Sales of items considered as looted by the IAA carries a punishment of up to two years in prison. Klein noted that each year more than 40,000 antiquities artifacts are exported from Israel. The IAA estimates that some 99% of the artifacts sold today are purchased by dealers from looters.

How dodgy are artefacts 'legally bought' from Israeli dealers?

Collector's Sculpture Seized from New York's Museum of Art

Knocked off bull head on loan
to the Metropolitan Museum of Art,
photo CreditWilliam and Lynda Beierwaltes

Another ancient object has been seized by Manhattan prosecutors from the displays at the Metropolitan Museum of art (Tom Mashberg, 'Met Museum Turns Over Another Relic With Disputed Past to Prosecutors New York Times August 1st 2017). The broken off head of a bull about 30 cm high was on loan to the Museum from a private collection. Concerns were raised last year by the Museum's curatorial staff that the object might have been looted from a Lebanese storage area in the 1980s during Lebanon’s civil war, prompting the museum to alert Lebanese officials, who asked the American authorities to step in and retrieve it. Museum officials delivered it to the office of the Manhattan district attorney Cyrus R. Vance last month.

The owners of the bull’s head, Lynda and William Beierwaltes of Colorado, say they have clear title to the item and have sued Manhattan prosecutors for its return. The Beierwaltes bought the head from a dealer in London in 1996 for more than $1 million and then sold it to another collector, Michael H. Steinhardt, in 2010. Mr. Steinhardt lent the relic to the Met that year, but after learning that Lebanon was disputing its provenance, he asked the Beierwaltes to take it back and compensate him.  The Beierwaltes are also suing the antiquities directorate in Lebanon as part of a federal lawsuit in which they argue that neither the Lebanese government nor Manhattan prosecutors have offered convincing proof that the item was stolen.

William G. Pearlstein, a lawyer for the Beierwaltes, said that his clients believe that the district attorney’s position is ill-founded, adding: 'The Beierwaltes are bona fide purchasers with clean hands. By contrast, for more than 50 years, Lebanon has failed take any action domestically or internationally to report any theft of the bull’s head'.

The item has a rich history. According to museum and Lebanese officials, it was first cataloged in 1967 by a Swiss archaeologist excavating the Temple of Eshmun in Sidon, Lebanon. It is believed to be of Greek origin, was warehoused in the city of Byblos, the site of a looting spree in the 1980s.

And yes, Mr Pearlstein the 1981 theft of several hundred artefacts, including sculptures from the museum store in the 1975 to 1990 civil war was not only 'reported' by Lebanon, but is generally known in the art world to have happened . Anyone buying such an item had every reason to be especially suspicious of its potential illicit origins. 

Saving the Heritage... without the Artefact Hunters

Rescue have published an eighth version of Fighting Back – our suggestions as to how to campaign to save our museums, archaeological services and the historic environment. These notes are intended to provide guidance for campaigners seeking to protect and preserve local and regional archaeological and heritage services and museums from cuts which will damage the service they deliver to the profession, to academia and to the public at large. They are also relevant to campaigns to protect and preserve specific buildings, sites and landscapes from destruction or destructive redevelopment. They are based on the experience of members of the committee of RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust and on advice we have received from other campaigners.

Given all the guff from the Establishment about UK artefact hunters 'saving the past' due to their 'passionate interest in history', it is noteworthy that neither they nor their organizing bodies are anywhere mentioned in this document (neither do they have one of their own).