"Indiana Jones has no future" - plundering antiquities loses acceptability - Interview

UNESCO Courier, April, 2001 by Michel Bessieres

THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST MARKET REGULATION

"The interchange of cultural property among nations increases the knowledge of the civilization of Man and enriches the cultural life of all peoples..." says the preamble of the 1970 Convention. Advocates of controlling the market are not opposed to the movement of cultural property. They are against illicit trade, which involves pieces of undetermined provenance. This crucial point made, here's why their adversaries' arguments do not stand up upon close examination.

Only the market gives works value. Without a market, heritage is neglected.

Wrong. Many pieces without any commercial value are of primordial interest to archaeologists. For example, simple shipboards analyzed via dendrochronology (the study of the growth rings of trees), are used to date shipwrecks. Moreover, fluctuation in sales prices often bear no relationship to a work's aesthetic qualities or historic interest. For example, a price surge sometimes leads to a spate of forgeries followed by total depreciation. Today, the prices of Daum and Galle Art Nouveau vases have fallen to an all-time low.

The defenders of heritage encourage a nationalist reaction against a more universal conception of culture.

Each country should be entitled to keep a representative ensemble of its heritage, which is an integral part of its identity. This principle does not call into question the free movement of works with a lawful provenance, nor does it violate the universalistic conception of culture in any way. Furthermore, archaeological looting is a form of theft, so it is legitimate for countries to combat it: those still rich with archaeological sites, such as Turkey, Italy and Greece, or those that have lost almost everything, such as the Samoa islands, Bangladesh and Mali.

Because of political instability or the corruption of elites, some countries are incapable of preserving their heritage. The pieces are better off in the collections of northern countries.

After a rash of thefts from several museums in Nigeria last year, Frank Willett, a highly regarded Scottish expert on that country, urged collectors not to restitute pieces that resurface on the market and accused the authorities of complicity in the robberies. The argument is not lacking in merit, but it overlooks an essential part of the problem. Trafficking, and the corruption that it implies, exists to meet demand. There is a market of course, but what's most important, is its tradition of confidentiality, against which the advocates of control are campaigning. The solution: museums and private collectors with unscrupulous acquisitions policies could invest the same sums to fund official archaeological excavations. For example, the U.S.-based Packard Foundation has earmarked $5 million for archaeological research in Zeugma, Turkey, helping to prevent the looting that has plagued this great site of Roman mosaics until now.

What entitles archaeologists to prevent poverty-stricken farmers from looting their ancestors' graves if that enables them to feed their families?