Who Owns Antiquity?

In my last blog posts I’ve talked about; looting and its effect on archaeology, the rise of fakes within the illicit market, the ethical treatment of human remains, antiquities in armed conflicts and the repatriation of antiquities. But what do all these things have in common? Well, at the heart of each issue is the question of ownership, and the different opinions people have about what our cultural heritage means and how it should be treated. So, one of the big questions in archaeology is “who owns antiquity?”. Do antiquties belong to humanity as a whole, or do they belong to the State they are found in? This debate has been going on for decades and has influenced the way we view and treat antiquities and the legislation surrounding it. For example, each nation has their own patrimony laws which protect artefacts found in their country. However, there are also international organisations and legislations that protect cultural heritage like UNESCO. International cultural heritage laws generally respect and endorse patrimony laws, but they also view culture as something that is of ‘great importance for all people of the world’ (UNESCO 1954) and something that should be shared.

Argument for State / National Ownership

Archaeology can be viewed as a cultural resource, and like any resource found within a territory, it belongs to the State. Counties also claim ownership over archaeology as they believe it belonged to their distant ancestors, and therefore are heirs to that culture.  Archaeology and history plays a major role in shaping our modern identities and what makes different cultures unique. Cultural heritage can also empower indigenous communities and allow them to gain social and economic benefits, like the Native Americans and Kennewick Man.Alexander argues that ‘national control maintains the integrity of culture and/or the object belonging to it’ (Alexander 2009, 46). Therefore, if artefacts are taken away from their country of origin it could detract from the overall culture, or the artefact could lose its interpretative value outside of its original context, just like the case of the Parthenon Marbles. Archaeologists argue that by removing an artefacts context, it turns it into an art object which is then ‘forced to conform to western conceptions of artistic production and consumption’ (Brodie 2008, 1). In addition, if archaeology belongs to the State, it can then be regulated more easily, preventing looting, loss of local heritage and scientific contexts.

Benin Bronze @ the British Museum. They are very controversial due to their acquisition. Watch the video below! (British Museum 2016)

Argument for International Ownership

However, internationalists argue that the free trade and movement in antiquities allows different cultures to be celebrated and studied across the globe, which will in turn create tolerance and understanding. Furthermore, they argue that institutions like the British Museum act as a type of cultural encyclopaedia. It allows everyone access to cultural resources and holds archaeology ‘in trust for the world’ (MacGregor 2015). In addition, James Cuno and John Merryman argue that looted artefacts, or artefacts that have lost their scientific and social context still have social lives. These artefacts turn into works or art which can be studied aesthetically and emotionally rather than scientifically. Furthermore, they argue that the ‘desirability of contextualisation’ (Gilman 2010, 43) is actually a western obligation. Furthermore, Cuno argues that State ownership and repatriation is essentially ‘Nationalist Retentionist’ , and implies that an artefact has one rightful owner rather than many.  However, many archaeologists and scholars argue that museums that accept looted antiquities are just encouraging and promoting the trade in illegal antiquities. 

 To Conclude…

As you can see the debate is not simple! It is evident that both sides have ulterior motives, but it is also evident that both sides make valid points. It is integral that archaeology is protected and regulated, and that our heritage isn’t sold off to the highest bidder. However, culture should be shared and understood by everyone. I argue that better relationships and loaning programmes between museums could prevent some museums purchasing or accepting illegal antiquities in the future! Archaeology is inherently political as it is the study of human culture, and it therefore has the ability to empower and oppress. This is why we need to continue having important debates like this one, in order to come to sustainable and ethical conclusions in the future.

References:

Alexander et all.2009. When Theory, Practice and Policy Collide, in: Hamilakis Y. and Duke P, eds. Archaeology and Capitalism. California: Left Coast Press. 45- 58.

Brodie, N. 2008. Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade. Florida: University Press Florida

British Museum. 2016. Benin Plaques. [Accessed 15.03.16] [Online].

Daley, P. 2015. Indigenous Leaders Fight for Return of Relic. The Guardian. [Online]

Gilman,D.2010. Two ways of thinking, in: The Idea of Cultural Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge university press..

MacGregor, N. 2015. The whole world in our hands.[Online ].

1954 UNESCO Convention

There has been no greater tragedy to mankind and cultural heritage in living memory than the Second World War. Archaeological and historical sites were destroyed, paintings burnt, sculptures were smashed and systematic art heists were carried out by the Nazis and allied forces. There was little legal protection of cultural heritage prior to the 1950s, but a special force of men and women, also known as the Monuments Men, were formed towards the end of the conflict. Their job was to prevent allied forces from using monuments and historic buildings as bases and retrieve stolen artefacts and artworks from German soldiers. They managed to salvage some of Europe’s greatest treasures from being lost forever. It was this cultural devastation that inspired the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The convention was the first international treaty of its kinds and has paved the way for further legislation on the protection of cultural heritage. The convention aimed to remove cultural heritage from the front lines of war and its ability to be used as tool for ‘psychological warfare’ (Auwera 2012, 53) and to foster ‘identity bound conflicts’ (Auwera 2012, 53).

Storeroom of looted artwork found at Neuschwanstein Castle, Sept 1945 (Smithsonian 2014)

Recent Destruction of Cultural Heritage In An Armed Conflict : Daesh

However, crimes against culture still occur, the most recent example being the destruction of archaeological sites by Daesh in Iraq. The terrorist organisation has destroyed Hatra, Nimrud and Palmyra. It is argued that the destruction of antiquities in Iraq is a form of religious iconoclasm, but scholars also suspect that Daesh is systematically looting sites and then destroying the evidence afterwards. Mark Altaweel, an archaeologist from UCL, has found huge quantities of artefacts from Iraq and Syria in London auction houses and shops. He argues that due to their distinctiveness they could have only originated from the area currently occupied by Daesh (Shabi 2015). UNESCO has since denounced the actions of the terrorist group and have labelled their actions as war crimes (UN News Centre 2015). But can the convention actually prevent crimes like these? If a country decides to ratify the convention, they agree to implement new national laws that respond to the specifications of the convention (Burri 2010). However, implementation laws can take years or even decades to carry out, therefore countries are morally obliged but not legally obliged to abide by the convention (Burri 2010)!

Daesh destroying the ancient Syrian site of Palmyra in 2015 (Telegraph 2015)

What does the Convention Entail?

In theory, the convention requires ratified parties to install special protective measures to safeguard moveable and immoveable cultural heritage in times of peace and war. For example, during times of peace, States can build protective museums, store rooms and have trained specialists and plans of action if war was to occur (UNESCO 1954). In addition, sites of cultural importance can be given World Heritage Status or given Blue Shield Protection, this is basically a form of Red Cross but for cultural Heritage (Heritage for Peace 2016). In times of war, parties must do what they can to protect cultural heritage, for example invading parties should not purposefully damage cultural property. The military is also not allowed to use cultural sites as bases or make cultural heritage a target. Looting, theft and vandalism is also prohibited, but some sites may be used as military tools if it is absolutely necessary. I wonder if the US army thought parking tanks at Babylon in 2003 was absolutely necessary?? Hmmm….

Map showing the destruction caused by U.S occupation at the ancient site of Babylon in 2003 (Sheehy 2005)

 

References:

Auwera, S. 2012. Contemporary Conflict, Nationalism, and the Destruction of Cultural Property during Armed Conflict: A Theoretical Framework. Journal of conflict archaeology, Vol. 7 No. 1, 49–65.

Burri, M. 2010. Keeping Promises: Implementing the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity into Eu’s internal policies. NCCR Trade Regulation, Report. [Online]. 

Heritage For Peace. 2016. Conflict, Heritage, Law. [Accessed 17.03.16] [Online]. 

Loveluck, L. 2015. Islamic State release pictures. The Telegraph. [Online].

Morrison, J. 2014. True Story of the Monuments Men. Smithsonian Mag. [Online].

Shabi, R. 2015. Antiquities looted by Isis. The Guardian. [Online].

Sheehy, F.  2005. The damage wrought by the construction of an American military base in the ruins of the ancient city of Babylon. The Guardian. [Online]

UN. 2015. UNESCO Chief condems the desturction of Palmyra. UN News Centre. [Online].

Ethical Treatment of Human Remains : Kennewick Man

As an archaeologist, I come across human remains nearly every day, whether it’s via books, lectures or handling sessions. I see human remains as scientific and archaeological specimens, however I also recognise that they were once alive just like me! The ethical treatment and study of human remains as an archaeologist is a wobbly balancing act! Kennewick Man is a prime example of the perpetual conflict between human ethics and science.

Who was he and why does he matter?

Kennewick man dates to 9000 BC, and is one of the oldest and most complete skeletons found in North America. The remains were found in 1996 on land belonging to the US Corps of Engineers. Due the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation act, Native American tribes requested the return of the ancient remains to be reburied (Preston 2014). The Corps agreed, but before they could be returned, American scientists undertook a lawsuit preventing the change in ownership (Preston 2014). They argued that Kennewick Man was an integral scientific specimen and could unlock the secrets of North Americas deep history. In addition, they argued that NAGPRA did not apply in this situation as modern tribes could not conclusively prove they had cultural links to remains as he is thousands of years old (Preston 2014). However, the Native Americans took out several lawsuits preventing any destructive scientific tests to be done, such as DNA testing. They argued that such tests were a form of desecration and that the body should be reburied as a whole.

‘Gerald Lewis of the Yakama tribe, at left, and Armand Minthorn of the Umatilla Tribe sing during the ceremony honouring the child’s reburial’ (Red Power Media 2014)

What Happened?

Non-invasive tests were done on the Skeleton as lawsuit after lawsuit ensued. Preliminary analysis on the skeleton showed it to be of Caucasoid origin, and a facial reconstruction strangely looked very similar to Star Treks Jean Lu Picard (Rasmussen et al 2016)! The Native American tribes and activists were less than happy with this depiction, as they thought it undermined their claims to the human remains (Preston 2014). In 2005, after a series of legal battles, the scientists were finally granted to undertake scientific testing on the remains. Many Native American tribes allowed their own DNA to get tested in order to prove their ancestral links. Last year, after 20 years of legal battles and debates, the results were revealed…Kennewick Man was … (drumroll)…Native American!

The new and more realistic facial reconstruction of Kennewick Man (Preston 2014)

Is there a moral to this story?

So, what does this actually mean and what does it change? Well, it should mean that the remains are returned for burial to the Native Americans. However, some scientists still argue that there is not enough genetic evidence to hand over the remains to a specific Native American tribe, due to the lack of strong genetic similarities. I think the moral of the story here is that when it comes to human remains and competing claims of ownership, there needs to be a degree of compromise and understanding. Science is integral to studying ancient cultures and can actually help empower local communities. However, we also need to respect the fact there are more ways of viewing things than from a western scientific standpoint. So, who decides what constitutes as ethical treatment and display of human remains? And how old does a body have to be before it is acceptable to display it as it doesn’t have any living relations? These questions are difficult answer, and like living people, human remains are individuals and therefore must be treated on a case by case basis.

References:

Archaeology As News. 2011. Archaeology, Sci-fi & Time Travel. [Online]

Preston, D. 2014. Kennewick Man Finally Freed To Tell His Secrets. Smithsonian Magazine. [Online].

Rasmusen, M, et al. The Ancestry and Affiliations of Kennewick Man. Nature Journal. Vol 523. [Online].

Red Power Media. Remains of Ancient Child Reburied By Native American Tribal Leaders. [Online]. 

Fake it to make it…?

Ebay Screenshot showing fake Egyptian antiquities on sale (Ebay 2016)

In my last blog post I talked about looting and how it worked. Now I want to talk about the dark counterpart of the antiquities trade…fakes! Every commercial market has a counterfeit side and archaeology is no exception. Archaeological forgeries can come in a number of sizes, shapes, materials and periods and have probably been made as long as the trade itself. And with any counterfeit trade, there are the downright bad like the Etruscan Terracotta Warriors or good ones such as the Getty Kouros, which still have not been identified as fake or genuine!  There are a number of techniques that people can use to fool the specialists and make things look older. For example, adding patinas to metal work, or rubbing ceramics in mud and acid (Stanish 2009). There are even techniques to fool scientific dating methods, such as thermoluminescence, which shows the last time a ceramic had been fired. A famous case of this was by a Malian potter who would grind up bits of ancient pot and mix it into his new forgeries, when tested, the fakes were dated as ancient (Brent 2001).

Faked Malian antiquity, made by crushing up older pottery to fool dating methods (Brent 2001)

How do fakes effect archaeology?

With the advent of the internet, fears arose that the black market would become democratised and rise exponentially (Stanish 2009). However, what happened next was unexpected. Analysis of market selling websites such as eBay actually showed a massive drop in the amount of illegal antiquities being sold, but a huge rise in fakes (Stanish 2009). The internet allowed looters to cut out the middle man and sell directly to buyers, allowing them to earn more money. Looters then realised that they could produce fakes more easily, quicker and cheaper, plus the materials to make them would never run out unlike archaeology which is a finite resource (Stanish 2009)! But are fakes good? On the one hand, faking artefacts is more economically sustainable, and allows poor families to make a living without destroying archaeology. Furthermore, by producing fakes, the locals can be seen to be protecting their cultural heritage and fighting back against western pressures

However, although they are not destroying archaeological sites anymore, faking artefacts can still have a negative effect on archaeology. For example, by selling fakes and saying they are real, they are still promoting and perpetuating the illegal trade in antiquities. People may become more interested in certain cultures due to the fakes and therefore, the real looters who don’t have the skills to make them will continue to destroy archaeological sites. Also, forgeries can be direct copies of existing artefacts or they can merge together many different forms (Stanish 2009). If these artefacts end up being scientifically studied, we may interpret them as being new ancient cultures and styles! This can blur everything we know of a society, for example the forger Brigido Lara made over ‘40,000’ (Cabinet Magazine 2001) fake ceramics mainly in the Totonacas style. Many of his pieces are owned by museums and collectors and it is thought that his work has actually shaped much of what we know about the history and ceramic style of the Totonacas (Cabinet Magazine 2001)

 

References

Brent, M. 2001. Faking African Art. Archaeology. Vol 54, Issue 1. 

Ebay. 2016. Egyptian Amulets. [Accessed 20.03.16] [Online].

Stanish, C. 2009. Forging ahead. Archaeology. Vol 62, Issue 3. 

Lerner, J. 2001. Brigido Lara : Post-Pre Columbian Ceramicist. Issue 2. 

 

The Dangers of Flint Knapping

Flint knapping became popular with archaeologists in the 1960s as it was a good way to replicate types of ancient technologies and therefore understand the historical progression of lithic artefacts. Soon, knapping became popular with non-academics in America, and communities and knapping events were set up across the country. These amateur knappers were not necessarily interested in the scientific and archaeology of knapping, but instead enjoyed it as a modern past time where people could socialise and share materials and ideas. It is now estimated there are around ‘5,000’ (Whittaker 1999, 206) amateur knappers in the US. Although it sounds like a great past time, modern knappers are causing huge problems for archaeologists!

Modern day art and craft flint tools (Masterpeices of Modern Lithic Art 2014)

Knappers create a huge amount of flint debitage and stone tools which are practically indistinguishable from ancient stonework. In addition, most contemporary knappers create modern looking or artistic stone tools, however others create replicas and fakes that can be sold onto the antiquities market as real lithics. Archaeologists and collectors argue that this has been going on since the 19^th century, for example Edward Simpson produced huge quantities of fake flint in the 1850s and was labelled the famous ‘flint jack’ (Whittaker 1999, 204). New lithics can be made to look prehistoric by scuffing them or making them look antiquated through acids. Fakes are bad for collectors as they taint real lithic collections and make assemblages worthless on the market due to other buyers being worried or purchasing fakes.

It is also bad for archaeologists as they get bequeathed collections by donors so they can be studied. However, if collections are full of fakes then their research can be wrong! But archaeologists already believe that high quantities of fake lithics have been around for decades and have already influenced typologies of lithics in North America (Whittaker 1999). Contemporary knappers who do not make fakes do also unwittingly affect the archaeological record. As many of the knappers go to prehistoric flint resource sites and remove stone, this contaminates the site and removes evidence of past human behaviour.

Furthermore, many knappers will test flint on site in order to make sure it is good, this creates ‘spalls’ and ‘blanks’ (Whittaker 1999, 212) which will be indistinguishable to the ancient debris at the prehistoric flint sites. This is essentially cultural formation processes, but it is nearly impossible to try and distinguish (Whittaker). This is why it is very important that knappers source their flint from unused or new resources and they knap on large matts and remove all their debiatge and dispose of it carefully. Many contemporary knappers have refuse pits in their gardens or go to landfill sites so as to make sure they dispose of their flint work in obviously modern contexts.

 

References:

Whittaker, J. 1999. Replicas, Fakes, and Art: The Twntieth Century Stone Age and Its Effects on Archaeology. American Antiquity. Vol 64, Issue 2, pp 203-214.

Masterpieces of Modern Lithic Art. 2014. Dovetails By Roy Miller. [Online]

An Introduction to the Antiquities Trade

Antiquities have been “excavated” and collected for centuries, one of the oldest collections was created by the Babylonian princess,Ennigaldi-Nanna in 530 BC! Our modern museums, like the British Museum, were founded on, and filled with collections amassed by Grand Tourists and Antiquarians in the 18th and 19th century. It was this culture of collecting that led to the scientific discipline of archaeology to develop. However, at the heart of it, our museums and the discipline of archaeology was founded and developed by looters! Archaeology became more regulated and scientific at the turn of the 20th century. Countries soon began to recognise the importance of their cultural heritage, and the need to protect it from looters and the illicit antiquities market. Therefore new organisations were formed, such as UNESCO and UNIDROIT. Furthermore, new conventions and legislations were introduced to safeguard cultural heritage, like the 1970 UNSECO convention against the illicit antiquities trade. 

Satellite images showing before and after pictures of the Temple of Bel at the ancient city of Palmyra. The temple was destroyed by ISIS in August last year. (ABC News 2016)

Who are the looters?

However, the black market still thrives today, and is thought to be the 3rd largest illegal market in the world (Brodie et al 2000) ! But how does it work? There are usually 3 actors within the looting process; the looter, the middle man and the buyer (Brodie et al 2000). The looter is usually a non-professional who illegally and unscientifically excavates archaeological sites for money. They are generally poor individuals in developing communities, who rely on looting for subsistence rather than profit. Middle men on the other hand, receive around ’98 %’ (Brodie et al 2000, 13) of the sale profit! These individuals mediate between the buyer and the looter and essentially commercialise and commoditise artefacts through economic transactions (Brodie et al 2000).  Buyers are usually wealthy western collectors, but they can be gangs, militaries or even terrorist groups.  It is argued by many archaeologists and art historians that ‘collectors are the real looters’ (Mackenzie 2009, 6) as they buy known stolen goods and purposefully support and encourage the destruction of archaeology.

In 2015 the Italian Government seized over 5,000 artefacts, some of which are pictured. It is thought to be worth 45 million Euros and was organised by a Swiss/Italian trafficking gang. (Nation 2015)

Why is looting bad?

Archaeology aims to scientifically excavate sites and record stratigraphy. Contexts, or the layer of soil an artefact is found in, tell us about its date, how it was deposited and its relationship to other archaeological features. Context basically acts as a mini history of the artefact, and can be integral to understanding things that are invisible in the archaeological record. For example, if a Roman pot is found in a grave in Britain, we can infer things about this individual and understand more about the occupation of Britain by the Romans. However, if this same pot is stolen, and its context is not recorded, it would just look like a Roman pot from Italy rather than a grave good found in Britain! Therefore, artefacts that are looted and lose their context, essentially become unscientific art objects.

Diagram showing the stratigraphic sequencing of an archaeological site, notice the different layers of occupation and the importance of understanding these different layers in order to connect them to people/time/activities. (Canterbury Archaeological Trust 2016)

As looting is carried out surreptitiously, we have little information on the extent of looting internationally or regionally and the effect it is having on archaeology. Although, a survey was undertaken in Mali in 1990s which showed that nearly ‘50% of 834 sites’ (Brodie et al 2000, 20) had been looted! As Mali is the second most archaeological rich African country, this figure has probably risen drastically in the last couple of years due to the current economic and political climate!

 

References

ABC News. (2015). Temple of Bel. [Online].

Brodie et al. 2000. Stealing History: the Illicit Trade in Cultural Material. The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Cambridge.

Canterbury Archaeological Trust. 2016. Learning About the Past. [Online].

Challis, D. 2006.The Parthenon Sculptures: Emblems of British National Identity. British Art Journal. Vol 2, Issue 1.

Mackenzie, S. 2009. Criminology and Archaeology. Hart Publishing. Portland. 

Nation News. 2015. Italy Seizes 5,000 Antiquities. [Online].