The explanation sketched out above for the twentieth century development of the trade in illicit antiquities identified five causal processes, but their articulation and synergy were only realized through the agency of the various ‘players’, from academics and museum curators, through dealers, to the people on the ground that do the actual digging. The active implication of professional ‘experts’ in market processes has since the 1960s caused the development of ethical standards that are intended to insulate professional practice from the market (see Ethical Issues and Responsibilities).
It seems inescapable that there should be a causative link between academic practice and the development of a market. The study and analysis of antiquities provide information about their age, their abundance, the geographical parameters of their production and consumption, and about their functional, aesthetic, and historical characteristics. This information helps to structure the market by providing typological categories and the means to judge quality and scarcity and therefore to estimate price. Back in 1904, Bosanquet blamed the looting of Phylakopi on the publication of an educational pamphlet by Finlay that had devoted seven out of fifteen illustrations to obsidian artifacts, and identified their Melian origin. It has been suggested many times since then that the market for ancient Greek pottery was formed by the publication of Johann Winckelman’s 1764 study of the pottery, his identification of its Greek origin (it had previously been thought to be Etruscan), and his comparison of its painted compositions to the work of Rennaissance masters.
But although market formation might be an unintended consequence of study and publication, the expertise of academic and museum specialists is also crucial for market function. Although at first sight the mitigating impact of the UNESCO Convention may appear to have been limited, the expert negotiations that accompanied its initial drafting and, later, the US ratification acted to raise awareness among professional archaeologists, anthropologists, and museum curators about practices beside legitimate study and publication that help sustain the trade and that might be avoided. A series of declarations made in the early 1970s by the major archaeological and museum associations endorsed the principles enshrined in the UNESCO Convention, and increasingly since then codes of ethics and practice have been formulated with provisions to guard against professional involvement with the trade. Unfortunately, there has not always been unanimous agreement as to what the correct ethical response should be, particularly as regards publication policies and museum acquisitions (both discussed below).
Professional archaeologists and museum curators possess the academically validated and thus socially recognized expert knowledge that allows them to pass authoritative judgments - either through scientific examination or the more traditional skill of connoisseur-ship - on the identity and the authenticity or otherwise of an antiquity. This service is an indispensable one for a market that is comprised largely of unprovenanced objects and badly infiltrated by fakes. Thus, while the academic study of archaeological material may be said to structure the market, the identification and authentication of unprovenanced antiquities allows the market to function. Recognizing this danger, professional associations now prohibit their members from identifying or authenticating unprovenanced objects in such a way that might support the market.
Although it is accepted that the academic study and publication of legitimate archaeological material promotes a market, it is also recognized that the study of material with no provenance and that has in all probability been looted causes two further problems. One problem is the intellectual one discussed above concerning the reliability of interpretation: the study of unprovenanced antiquities is constrained by the absence of information relating to archaeological find spot that vitiates the context of understanding. The second problem is a commercial one: the study and publication of an unprovenanced object will in itself provide a provenance of sorts, an academic pedigree, and make it easier to sell in the future. Thus many archaeologists and museum curators believe that the academic study of unprovenanced material provides only a limited addition to historical knowledge, and one that is gained at the cost of a potentially larger loss of available information through the consequential looting of more archaeological sites. The academic journals American Journal of Archaeology (in 1978) and American Antiquity and Latin American Antiquity (in 1991) tackled this issue when they decided not to publish any paper that offers first publication of looted or illegally exported material. This decision has not been universally welcomed, and the counterargument has been developed that some objects, particularly written materials, have an intrinsic importance, even out of context, that warrants their study and publication so that their information is saved for posterity.
Museums have the potential to play a central role in the antiquities trade through their acquisition policies. As noted above, when a museum acquires an object with no provenance it contributes directly to demand and sets an ethical standard. Professional museums associations have responded to this problem by asking that their member museums formulate acquisitions policies incorporating guidelines about unprovenanced material. Museum associations also offer advice as to what degree of provenance might make an object acceptable for acquisition, although there is some disagreement as to what this might constitute. So, for example, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) recommends that unprove-nanced objects should not be acquired at all, while the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) suggests that they are suitable for acquisition if it can documented that they have been out of their country of origin for more than 10 years. The different recommendations reflect a difference of opinion between those who believe that the acquisition of an unprove-nanced object encourages further looting, and those who believe that the looting has already happened and the object needs to be ‘saved’. A compromise is the so-called ‘1970 Rule’, advocated by the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) and Britain’s Museums Association (MA), whereby objects that are documented to have been out of their country of origin since 1970, the date of the UNESCO Convention, are acceptable for acquisition.
People who live in the vicinity of archaeological sites are sometimes the people who loot them, and other times they are indifferent or acquiescent. This fact has made it clear that the ethical responsibilities of archaeologists go beyond simply refraining from activities that will sustain the market, and that archaeological research must have a public as well as an academic aspect. Where possible, archaeologists, particularly those who work in foreign countries, should endeavor to work with the consent of the local and/or indigenous public, to recognize the public claim on archaeological heritage and to respect local sensitivities. It is also the responsibility of archaeologists to ensure that their methods and aims are more widely understood, to employ and to train local people, and to publicize their results through popular as well as academic media. Sites (where appropriate) should be prepared for public presentation so that they can be incorporated into educational curricula and tourist itineraries. Many of these activities have a potential economic outcome, which can be crucial in poorer areas and should not be overlooked or neglected as being irrelevant to research. When local communities are accepted as stakeholders in the archaeological process, they are more likely to take a proprietorial interest in their local archaeology.
Seealso: Antiquities and Cultural Heritage Legislation; Ethical Issues and Responsibilities; Historic Preservation Laws; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; Politics of Archaeology; Pseudoarchaeology and Frauds; Who Owns the Past?; World Heritage Sites, Types and Laws.
World History
