Published in Museums Journal, May 2010
This year sees the 10th anniversary of the publication of Stealing History: the Illicit Trade in Cultural Material.
Commissioned by the Museums Association (MA) and the International Council of Museums (Icom) UK and co-authored by Neil Brodie, Jenny Doole and Peter Watson at the now-defunct Illicit Antiquities Research Centre at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, the report looked at the role of government in preventing illicit trade, and the measures museums should take to protect themselves from participating, albeit unwittingly, in the trade.
Its publication in 2000 coincided with the release of Icom’s first Red List, documenting endangered cultural material in Africa, and preceded an investigation and report later that year by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade (APIT).
The confluence of Stealing History and the advisory panel’s report came about through a growing awareness of the issue, and the need to address it, particularly in the UK. Interpol’s London Bureau told the APIT that during 1999 it had dealt with 132 cases connected with the trafficking of stolen cultural goods and HM Revenue & Customs valued the total of cultural goods seized between June 1995 and June 1999 at £20.3m. The implications for museums acquiring unprovenanced antiquities were clear.
One of the most important results of Stealing History’s publication, says Maurice Davies, the MA’s head of policy and communications and a member of the advisory panel, was an increased awareness of the issues for museums.
“There was a feeling prior to the report that if an item might have been looted, that it was better it was in a museum. After the report there was shock that so much stuff was looted, and a change in attitude as a result.”
The decade since has seen a sea change in approach by government and museums. In 2002 the UK ratified the 1970 Unesco convention on illicit trade, which says “the import, export or transfer of ownership of cultural property effected contrary to the provisions adopted under this Convention by the States Parties thereto, shall be illicit”.
This was followed by the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, making it an offence for anyone to deal dishonestly in tainted cultural property, and the Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2003, prohibiting the illegal exportation or importation of cultural property from Iraq after 6 August 1990.
Crucially for museums, in 2005 the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issued guidelines on combating illicit trade, laying out the process for due diligence and declaring that “in all cases, if there is any suspicion whatsoever about the item, then you should not proceed with the acquisition”, while in 2006 the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council established its Cultural Property advice internet portal.
All of these changes find their genesis in the recommendations of Stealing History and the APIT report, but 10 years on, some of those recommendations have still not been followed. Chief among these is the government’s failure to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention on the protection of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict.
John Curtis, the keeper of the Middle East collections at the British Museum, believes that had it been ratified prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the situation on the ground might have been different. What Curtis describes as “the failure by coalition troops to protect the Iraqi cultural heritage” saw illegal excavations at sites across the country and the looting of the national museum and several provincial museums.
However, he qualifies this by saying: “The situation in the four southern provinces under British control is not so bad as the situation further north in places like Babylon, Baghdad and Mosul.”
In the UK, tightened legislation has meant that Iraqi antiquities are not circulating as openly as they once were, says the head of Scotland Yard’s Art and Antiques Unit, Vernon Rapley, but suspicious material from Iran, Afghanistan and Syria is still being imported.
“It is a clandestine activity, so there are no clear figures,” Interpol’s Karl-Heinz Kind says. “But if you suppose that the trade in general, including the legal trade, is increasing, that would presuppose that perhaps illicit trade is on the increase, too.”
While the trade in antiquities, illicit or otherwise, may have increased, acquisitions of antiquities by museums in the UK, and increasingly the US, have gone the opposite way. For James Cuno, the director of the Art Institute of Chicago, this is a sign that the constraints on acquisitions are now too tight.
“We have given great consideration to the role museums might be playing in the loss of archaeological evidence through looting by our acquisition of antiquities with less than complete provenance. Over time we have accepted more restrictive conditions for the acquisition of such material.”
He argues that the effect on museums in north America is that they rarely acquire antiquities because of “the constraints we are having to put on ourselves and because of the constraints that various legal machines have put upon museums seeking to acquire antiquities”.
But Colin Renfrew, a senior fellow of the McDonald Institute and a member of the APIT, disagrees: “It is a bad sign that some people wonder if we shouldn’t take a softer line. It would simply open the doors for floods of looted antiquities into museums. It would legitimise what goes on.”
Renfrew is backed by Neil Brodie, one of the co-authors of Stealing History. He says: “People are digging stuff up because there is a market and historically museums have underpinned that market.”
He can point to museums in the US and the UK today, although he won’t say which ones, that are still acquiring objects the provenance of which is “pretty suspicious”. But in general, he says, there has been a positive change in attitude.
And this is, perhaps, Stealing History’s greatest triumph: over the past decade, the views of its authors have become the consensus for museums. Even its contributors are surprised by the impact that it has had.
“I thought it would just be a report for internal consumption, and not a lot would come of it,” Brodie says. “I know now it does get quoted a lot in academic literature, because we set out to make our arguments based in hard facts, and that’s why it gets referred to a lot.”
The report may well have changed attitudes and raised the level of debate and awareness about the issue, but the reality is that looting of cultural property still takes place across the globe.
Museums can play a role in preventing it by checking provenance and closing down the market for such goods. But as long as former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld can get away with saying “stuff happens” after the looting of the National Museum of Iraq, then there is some way to go in preventing illicit trade altogether.
Endangered species
The International Council of Museums’ (Icom) Red Lists contain categories of cultural objects around the world which are particularly vulnerable to illicit traffic. There are currently six Red Lists, covering Africa, Latin America, Peru, Iraq, Afghanistan and Cambodia. Icom is planning to launch a list for Central America and Mexico next month, and is also currently working on lists for Colombia and China.
The Red Lists are representative rather than exhaustive, designed to flag up areas and types of object to potential buyers so that they will know to take precautionary measures if dealing with an artefact that they think may originate from a Red List country.
The following items are a selection of some of the most endangered types of object around the world:
Iraq
From the Emergency Red List of Iraqi Antiquities at Risk, 2003
Any object with Cuneiform writing on it. This writing is composed of horizontal, vertical or oblique strokes with triangular ends, impressed or incised into the material.
Afghanistan
From the Red List of Afghanistan Antiquities at Risk, 2006
Pottery and ceramics from the Islamic period.
Latin America
From the Red List of Latin American Cultural Objects at Risk, 2003
Wooden snuff trays from the pre-Colombian period.
Peru
From the Red List of Peruvian Antiquities at Risk, 2007
Fired-clay vessels of various shapes with incised, modeled, molded and painted designs.
Cambodia
From the Red List of Cambodian Antiquities at Risk, 2009
Stone from pre-Angkor period (from 6th to 8th centuries AD).
Africa
From the Red List of African Archaeological Objects, 2000
Stone statues from Esie, Nigeria.