This dissertation was written to investigate the illicit trade in antiquities and has thoroughly covered a wide variety of issues surrounding the topic. In this work there have been points that have arisen during the course of my investigation that can be identified as key factors in the debate against the illicit trade of antiquities.
Throughout this report I have discussed the provenance and history of objects as being a key issue in resolving whether an item has been illicitly traded. Archaeologists want all antiquities found to be examined and recorded, preferably in the context that they were originally discovered. They will use provenance to help build up a picture of who owned the item through the ages. Dealers want to trade the items for profit and will use provenance as a means to enhance their value. This causes a divide between the academic and retail value of antiquities.
Although both sides have a desire to learn about each object, I feel that the academic view could be rather idealised - there is so much property to be discovered from past civilisations that we must only need an example of important items from those societies, instead of keeping vast archives of material which may only be used once. Through a system of recording and cataloguing, a museum could keep electronic or paper records of every item and then sell less important objects along with the superb provenance of coming from that institution. This would assist dealers in providing them with a regular, legitimate source of provenanced antiquities and increase revenue and archive space for a museum.
In the case of metal detectorists, they should retain the right to the objects they find and feel free to do what they will with them, after they have been recorded. This is the intention of the Government through its Portable Antiquities Scheme and I think that they have taken the sensible precaution of making the scheme voluntary, so that it is not seen as a form of control (like the old Treasure Trove laws).
The troubles associated with provenance have led to Sotheby's closing down their UK Antiquities department. Institutions, such as the Getty Museum, are placing time limits on the purchase of un-provenanced artefacts. (In America they adopted the 1970 UNESCO Convention in 1973 and therefore un-provenanced artefacts purchased before this date are seen to be licit and all others after illicit, unless proven otherwise).
The only time that the illicit trade is really highlighted appears to be if someone questions the provenance or legality of an antiquity. This means that there is a level of acceptance within the trade that each object, provenanced or not, has good title and can be sold. I have proved through several examples that good title is not always associated with antiquities and that when the legality of certain objects are questioned, they have been proven illicit. There has to be a point where we must accept that an antiquity has lost its historical value and becomes an aesthetic object, especially if it has been illegally excavated. I believe in the 'guilty, until proven innocent,' approach, even though it is not liked by dealers and I suggest that this be implement by all for the future. By not trusting the legality of an object until it has been proved licit, dealers can be safely diligent in their purchases, protecting both themselves and the consumer. This will also make it less attractive for thieves because they will have to prove to dealers that they hold good title to the objects they want to sell.
Although the trade will never be fully stopped it is possible to curb it to an extent where it is not profitable to trade illicitly in antiquities. However, you might lose the excitement in dealing with these objects because there could be too many onerous controls and this would reflect in less people dealing and lower values of antiquities. The choice has to be made between encouraging a healthy market in these goods and keeping it as honest as possible.
The law protecting antiquities needs to be ratified by the United Kingdom before we can actively prevent an illicit trade. However, creating a universal rule to protect cultural property may not be the answer - it is probably better to create guidelines around which individual nations can base their law according to their situation. The UK is a source country for antiquities and therefore needs to have more stringent export regulations to prevent the loss of our heritage. Switzerland, for example, has little cultural property and its open borders mean that it will accept anything coming in to the country. Therefore they might require better import legislation to prevent the loss of antiquities (from other nations) through legal exports from the country.
There are a number of organisations that have taken an interest in the illicit antiquities trade and they all offer solutions to the problem. IARC offers an academic answer by researching and recording events connected to the trade and then publishing their results. They have useful connections in both the Government and media which gives them a voice to be heard by. The PAS is a more commercial venture which placates both finders and academics by allowing the recording (by an archaeologist) and subsequent keeping (by the finder) of ancient artefacts.
~
There is a price to pay for age, but the real value of antiquities is the pleasure derived by all in the owning, viewing, handling, researching and dealing of these objects.
~
Further Reading:
Art, Antiquitiy and Law. Quarterly journal published by Kluwer Law International.
Culture Without Context. Bi-yearly journal of the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre.
Meyer, K., The Plundered Past (London 1973). A good introduction to the illicit trade.
Tubb, K., "Antiquities: Trade or Betrayed?" (London 1995). A very good review of the topic.
Stead, I. M., The Salisbury Hoard (London 1998). The British view of the illcit trade.
Watson, P., Sotheby's: Inside Story (London 1998). Investigative journalism into Sotheby's practices.
by Andrew Cranwell, 1999
