The plunder of archaeological sites for their saleable antiquities can be traced back at least to the eighteenth century, and probably earlier. But it was during the twentieth century that the practice extended and intensified to achieve its present size and scope. This expansion was caused by at least five processes that were acting together to increase demand, reduce legal supply, and increase illegal supply.
First, there was a continuing increase in the number of museums collecting archaeological material. Museums, art museums in particular, exert a primary effect on the market by acquiring unprovenanced antiquities, and in so doing exert a secondary effect by sending a clear signal to private collectors that such practice is acceptable. By displaying archaeological objects as treasures or great works of art, museums also increase their desirability.
Second, Western artistic taste became more inclusive. While the proliferating museums were busy acquiring art, the range of material that was available for them to collect as art was also increasing. From the Renaissance through to the end of the nineteenth century, classical Greek and Roman sculpture had been thought to epitomize art, but the onset and development of modernism changed all that. Many artists started to draw inspiration from non-European and non-classical sources, and as a result since the end of the nineteenth century antiquities from all parts of the world have come to be seen as significant artworks, or at least to possess aesthetic qualities that appeal to Western taste.
Third, although an increasing variety of antiquities was coming to be regarded as aesthetically worthwhile, their legitimate supply was diminishing as newly independent countries moved to introduce stringent regimes of heritage protection. One of the first actions of the newly independent Greek state was in 1833 to pass a law forbidding the export of antiquities. This law was promulgated in response to the depredation of Greek archaeological heritage that had taken place under the centuries of Ottoman occupation, particularly over the preceding 50 years, and which the Greeks themselves had been powerless to curtail. The Greek example has been followed many times over as countries freed from colonial rule have passed legislation to protect their archaeological heritage from illegal trade (see Antiquities and Cultural Heritage Legislation).
Fourth, improving technologies allowed better location of archaeological sites, easier access to them, and more efficient removal of material from them. It also became progressively easier to obtain information and to arrange transactions. Sites and monuments in previously remote (from the market) places such as West Africa and the Himalayas have since been devastated. Shipwrecks on the deep ocean floor have also become accessible and vulnerable.
Finally, toward the end of the twentieth century, many political barriers to trade disappeared as the formerly closed communist world opened up. Czech police, for example, estimate that thefts from cultural institutions increased 12-fold when the Czech Republic’s borders opened in 1990.
The cumulative and deleterious effect of these processes on archaeological heritage can be seen in most areas of the world. The terracotta statues of West Africa, for example, were largely unknown 50 years ago, but over the past few decades they have been dug up in ever-increasing numbers to feed the growing demand for so-called ‘tribal’ or ‘primitive’ art. The results have been predictable. In 2000, ICOM issued its Red List of Endangered African Heritage, which detailed eight categories of archaeological objects that are under imminent threat from looting and theft, and appealed to museums, auction houses, art dealers, and collectors to stop buying them. The list included Nok terracottas from Nigeria and Djenni; terracottas from Mali, and the Bura terracottas of Niger. Bura terracottas were not discovered until 1983, and so in less than 20 years they had passed from being an unknown to an endangered tradition.
World History
