To: Andrew Cranwell <acranwell@clara.net>
Subject: Re: Your letter of 22 Feb. 99
Date: 29 March 1999 12:41
Dear Andrew
I am glad that the information was of some use.
Bearing in mind your interest in computers and ultimate goals, I wonder if you should look at the Getty Object ID programme concerned with protecting cultural objects and IT. It may take your studies in a slightly different direction, but there may be more mileage in it for you. Information on the programme is available on the Net at:
http://www.gii.getty.edu/pco/index.html
See what you think.
I will ask Peter Watson if it OK for you to e-mail him with specific
questions.
Best, Jenny.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Doole
Illicit Antiquities Research Centre
The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
Downing Street
Cambridge CB2 3ER
Tel: +44(0)1223 339342
Phone: +44(0)1223 333536
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999, Andrew Cranwell wrote:
Dear Jenny,
Cheers for all of you recommendations, I have bought the Salisbury Hoard Book (The Tubb book being a little more difficult to track down!) and am thoroughly enjoying the story, which seems to follow rather similar line to that of Peter Watson's investigation. I am specifically interested in antiquities because someone else is dealing with the 'antiques' side, but I will refer to the stolen art and antiques area because there are a greater variety of figures and information pertaining to the general theme.
I am interested to know how you heard of me, my net presence is not too large (but will hopefully grow in the future.) I intend to take an MSc in Computer science and then merge what skills I have now from my present BA to bring the antiques industry up to date (some auction houses do not even own computers, or have electronic databases!) I have a web page at www.acranwell.clara.net if you are interested in learning a bit more. [The site has changed recently]
I would be very interested in talking to Peter Watson, or a least creating a list of questions which he could answer by e-mail or letter (as I understand he is a very busy man!) as to the international nature of the illicit trade in antiquities. I will also be writing / talking to I. M. Stead of the Salisbury Hoard book to get the feel for the British 'underworld.'
The survey that I sent out (I remember enclosing a copy to show you) has not elicited many responses, after three weeks of them having been out only 15 /> 50 replies have been returned and whilst the dealers are honest as to the nature of their business, and some comments have been useful, replies have been cagey as to the nature of un-provenanced antiquities. I also understand why Bruce McAlpine Ltd was 'returned' by the Royal Mail (re Salisbury Hoard...) The difficulties surrounding provenance appear to be the biggest problem connected with antiquities especially where ex-Grand Tour pieces appear on the market with no connections to their origins, yet are still legally in the country?!
I will be in contact with the ALR who had some useful figures on their web-site and Trace magazine have provided some usable statistics concerning recovery. The MSN has also been very helpful especially with the digests for the last two years being available for download.
If you could provide me with any more information on Chippendale and Gill, or whether it would be possible to examine survey results on the market of Cycladic figures that would be very helpful. I am tracing Attic vases through the auction houses (over a ten year period) because they are easily recognisable and have specific provenance books which list all major finds, therefore one without a listing is likely to have been illicitly bought into the country.
Thank you again,
Andrew Cranwell
-----Original Message-----
From: Jenny Doole <jd244@cam.ac.uk>
To: acranwell@clara.net <acranwell@clara.net>
Date: 22 March 1999 15:55
Subject: Your letter of 22 Feb. 99
Dear Andrew
Thank you for your letter, and sorry for this delayed response.
We, too, have come across your name on the Internet, and I had already read with interest about your dissertation topic. Are you interested in art and antiques, or just antiquities? Our own research is generally focused on destruction of archaeology and the subsequent loss of information. Of course we are interested in and monitor, as well as we can, the workings of the antiquities market where relevant, and our colleague Peter Watson is particularly interested in such matters.
You will already have realised that getting hard statistical information on these topics is difficult. Chippendale and Gill have done (and are continuing to do) excellent work monitoring sale room catalogues with regard to Cycladic figurines. The Art Loss Register may also be a possible source of information for you. I know that you are a member of the Museum Security Network, which is often a useful source of on-line information and contact addresses. It would probably be useful to extend your non-electronic reading a little too. On the resource pages of our web site I have included a short list of books which will probably be essential reading for you -particularly Tubb, "Antiquities: Trade or Betrayed?" and - if you want a readable overview of the way the British antiquities trade works - Stead, "The Salisbury Hoard".
Our Web address is: http://www-mcdonald.arch.cam.ac.uk/IARC/home.htm
I will send you the latest issue of our own publication Culture Without Context, so that you can see the type of issues we deal with. If you feel it would be helpful to talk to any of us, or ask any specific questions, please feel free to contact us. Peter Watson will be back in Cambridge in mid-April.
The best of luck with your dissertation,
Yours sincerely, Jenny Doole.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Doole
Illicit Antiquities Research Centre
The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
Downing Street
Cambridge CB2 3ER
Tel: +44(0)1223 339342
Phone: +44(0)1223 333536
From: R & H Jaeschke <MrsHJaeschke@email.msn.com>
To: Andrew Cranwell <acranwell@clara.net>
Subject: Re: Antiquities market
Date: 07 April 1999 08:35
Dear Andrew
Yes, by all means show the email and quote from it if that is of any use.
There are two points in your reply in particular which I think could be expanded.
A conservator, by treating an object, does not just - help to preserve it -. Every action a conservator takes changes that object irrevocably and therefore has to be debated seriously. (The golden rule in conservation is to do as little as possible, and although it sounds humorous it is not a joke.) Every molecule of corrosion contains atoms from the original and may retain traces of the object's history. The integrity of the object is what we strive to preserve, not its appearance or even the survival of some relic, but the essence of the original, through the stages of its use, reuse, repair, damage and eventual loss or burial.
Secondly, and concommitant from the first point, a looted object has already suffered irremedial loss - it has been divorced from its context and only part of it remains. A corroding bronze bracelet could be brought to a conservator - it could be cleaned and stabilised, which would preserve what is left. But if that bracelet has been looted from a site, we lose all chance of knowing whose bracelet it was, whether it was lost or part of a burial or a metalworker's hoard. Perhaps we could even have put a name to it if it had been excavated. Treating the looted object gives it greater commercial value and makes it more likely that other sites will be looted and other evidence of our past destroyed. A conservator who refuses to work on looted items is honouring the commitment to the unexcavated mass of mankind's past, even though it is likely that the looted items will deteriorate more rapidly by being treated by less experienced or less well-trained hands. Ruskin said "We do not own the past" and I wish that could be written in pokerwork on the desk of every politician and auctioneer and dealer and above all every collector. We have no right to destroy evidence of our history because we are too cheap to pay for its preservation, especially when we are trying to cherrypick antiquities because we think they are beautiful.
What do you think of the concept of Ancient Art ? So often it is applied to items which were not created as art because we have divorced them from their origin and use. Religious items are an obvious example of this, but even household wares have been included in this. Calling them art enables us to forget our obligations to them as evidence of our past and treat them as
beautiful possessions. D you remember the debate over the Graham Sutherland portrait of Sir Winston Churchill ? He (Sir W) loathed it, and when he died his widow (I believe) burnt it. Did she have the right to destroy something which was given to him as his property and which she had inherited? Did she have a duty to preserve the work of an artist ?
More to ponder.
All the best
Helena
From: R & H Jaeschke <MrsHJaeschke@email.msn.com>
To: acranwell@clara.net <acranwell@clara.net>
Subject: Antiquities market
Date: 05 April 1999 11:43
Dear Andrew
We were interested to read your recent query regarding Attic vases and the antiquities market.
As freelance archaeological conservators we made the decision to work on artefacts that come from excavations (either from the excavating unit or when it is lodged in a museum) or items which have been in the museum's collection from several decades (and certainly prior to any legislation being passed in the country of origin). This has resulted in some interesting comments and attitudes from dealers in antiquities and curators of museums which purchase or display items recently purchased who are displeased that we will not work on their material - improving its financial value for sale and increasing its chances of survival. Conservators who do work on such material may (intentionally or inadvertently) remove evidence of the origin of the item and lay themselves open to lawsuits from the country of origin if ownership is proved. This is discussed in the postprints of a conference on the subject: Trade or Betrayed, Conservation and the Antiquities Trade (1995).
One anomaly which you may like to mention is that genuine archaeological artefacts imported into the UK incur no customs duties because they are guaranteed to be more than 100 years old, but modern replicas would incur duty. So importers are sometimes at pains to prove the pots or other items they are importing have come from an archaeological site, even if it is known that the country in question does not allow the export of antiquities.
Customs and Excise have no powers (or inclination) to pursue the fact that the items are illegally exported, as long as they are legally imported into the UK.
Good luck with the paper.
Richard and Helena Jaeschke
Archaeological conservators
From: lynn.gates@culture.gov.uk <lynn.gates@culture.gov.uk>
To: acranwell@clara.net <acranwell@clara.net>
Subject: RE: Illicit trade in antiquities
Date: 07 April 1999 15:53
Dear Andrew
Thank you for your e-mail.
Whilst regarding the overall aims of the UNIDROIT Convention as laudable, the previous administration thought it contained a number of provisions which made it unacceptable. The two principle problems were the scope of the Convention (ie the extremely wide and imprecise definitions of cultural property) and the extended limitation periods.
The current Government is currently undertaking an inter-departmental consultation about whether the UK should become a signatory to the Convention. When this has been completed, Ministers will consider whether the UK should sign.
Lynn Gates
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Cranwell [mailto:acranwell@clara.net]
Sent: 07 April 1999 14:05
To: lynn.gates@culture.gov.uk
Subject: Re: Illicit trade in antiquities
Dear Mrs Gates,
I do have one further question which concerns the UNIDROIT convention, it is simply, why did the UK not ratify the agreement? As I understand we did not agree with sectns 3&4, which deal with the return of antiquities if found and what repayment should go to the 'loser'. Therefore do we not agree for budgetary reasons or was there an ethical or law point that was not a good as British law / ethics?
Thank you for your help before,
Yours sincerely,
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: lynn.gates@culture.gov.uk <lynn.gates@culture.gov.uk>
To: acranwell@clara.net <acranwell@clara.net>
Date: 12 March 1999 16:23
Subject: Illicit trade in antiquities
Dear Mr Cranwell
Thank you for your e-mail of 9 March to the Secretary of State about the illicit trade in antiquities.
Art theft is a matter for the police so I would suggest that you contact the Art & Antiques Squad at New Scotland Yard to see whether they are able to provide you with some statistics.
Regarding illegal exports, there are no statistics available since by the very nature of the offence, ie export without having gone through the proper procedures, there is no way of establishing what has been exported.
There is no offence of illegal import.
I am not aware of DTI having commissioned a report about the allegations made against employees of Sotheby's. I wonder whether you are, in fact, referring to Sotheby's own internal enquiry into the matter. If so, you will need to approach Sotheby's about this. I am sorry that you I cannot be of more help but best wishes with your dissertation.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Lynn Gates
*******************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. Any opinions expressed in this email are not those of the DCMS unless expressly stated.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
********************************************************
From: lynn.gates@culture.gov.uk <lynn.gates@culture.gov.uk>
To: acranwell@clara.net <acranwell@clara.net>
Subject:
Date: 05 May 1999 11:41
Dear Andrew
Thank you for your e-mail of 25 April. The answers to your questions are as follows.
1954 HAGUE CONVENTION
The UK has not ratified the Hague Convention. However, it is likely that we will shortly ratify a Protocol to this Convention which sets out guidelines for the avoidance of the destruction of cultural property in times of conflict. The Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) is the government department in the lead on this Convention so if you require any further information, I would suggest that you contact Michael Clark at the FCO, King Charles Street, London SW1.
1970 UNESCO CONVENTION
The UK is not a signatory to the Convention. The present Government has not yet taken a view on whether to sign the Convention. Previous governments have had a number of difficulties with the Convention, in particular the definition of cultural property which is extremely wide in scope and open to different interpretations by different countries.
1992 CHARTER OF COURMEYER
I am not aware of a "Charter of Courmeyer". However, as I recall (dredged from my memory as the file is not immediately to hand) there was a conference/seminar in Courmeyer out of which presumably there would have been a recommendation. Unlike the Conventions, such a recommendation is not something to which States become signatories and translate the provisions into legislation. However, if I seem to have got this wrong and you have something to hand on which I could comment, please let me know.
1995 UNIDROIT CONVENTION
We are not a signatory but the UNIDROIT Convention is currently the subject of an inter-departmental consulation. When this has been completed, Ministers will consider whether or not to sign the Convention. Whilst believing that the aims of the Convention are laudable, the previous government had a number of difficulties with the final text, including the definition of cultural property (which is
identical to that contained in the 1970 UNESCO Convention) and the limitation periods.
1993 EU DIRECTIVE
The Directive was, in fact, adopted in 1993. It was amended in 1996. The UK has implemented the Directive into national law by Statutory Instrument 1994/501 as amended by Statutory Instrument 1997/1719. I hope this information is of some help.
Lynn Gates
*******************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. Any opinions expressed in this email are not those of the DCMS unless specifically stated.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
*******************************************************
