Vol. 20 No. 12 (December, 2010) pp.715-718
CRIMINOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGY: STUDIES IN LOOTED ANTIQUITIES, by Simon
Mackenzie and Penny Green (eds). Oxford, UK, and Portland, Oregon: Hart
Publishing, 2009. 182pp. Hardback. £45.00/$90.00. ISBN: 9781841139913.
Paperback. £22.00/$44.00. ISBN: 9781841139920.
Reviewed by Sawyer
Sylvester, Department of Sociology, Bates College, Email: ssylvest [at]
bates.edu.
CRIMINOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGY is a collaborative effort among
professionals and scholars to join in describing the harms involved in the
international trafficking in looted antiquities, to point out the weakness in
the international legal structures that deal with such harms, and to suggest
improvements in governing policy which further collaboration might provide.
The introductory paper by Mackenzie and Green points out that the theft of
cultural objects, although bad enough itself, has a special harm in that it
breaches an historical record by destroying the material context of historical
objects, a context which can never be restored.
Preventive efforts have
generally consisted of vesting legislation in which the state claims ownership
of buried artifacts of a certain age and export controls that simply mandate a
license for export of antiques. These controls, however, are unlikely to have
much effect in countries that are the source of antiquities since the likelihood
of apprehension and prosecution is remote; and countries where antiquities are
marketed often simply ignore the laws of source nations. The legal problem is
exacerbated by the complex transit routes often taken by stolen antiquities, a
process which provides a sort of documentary laundering.
Kenneth Polk’s
paper begins by pointing out the relative lack of work by criminologists in the
field of looted antiquities, especially empirical work. This is surprising given
the attention that has been focused on other illegal markets such as those
involving drugs. And it’s not that criminology has nothing to offer. There are
elements of criminological theory – Routine Activities Theory comes to mind –
which might be trained on the behavior involved in looted antiquities. Such a
theoretically informed view might serve to free the current policy on
antiquities from what Polk sees as an obsession with deterrence, a philosophy
which he sees has generally not worked.
A second obsession Polk sees in
current policy is the emphasis on remediation over prevention, such as getting
the goods back over initial protection of antiquities from theft. However,
protection is difficult precisely because archaeological finds are often in
remote areas of less-developed countries. However much, or little, supply
factors are affected by deterrence or prevention, Polk suggests the solution
ultimately lies with the demand elements. Some sort of cultural shift must take
place in both market and source countries such that [*716] purchasers refuse to
accept antiquities without adequate provenance (especially museums, many of
which have filled their vaults with inadequately documented goods). At the same
time, all nations must place a higher priority on the protection of their
cultural heritage.
Tony Ward’s contribution to the collection centers on
the problem of how to recognize the special harm involved in the looting of
antiquities. This harm would seem to be tied directly to the nature of value
attached to historical artifacts. Ward invokes the sociology of Georg Simmel,
specifically his PHILOSOPHY OF MONEY. Simmel wished to establish a sociological
origin for value different from the reductionist views of Marx. Simmel
acknowledged the importance of exchange (as in Marx’s concept of exchange
value), but exchange value freed from the marketplace.
This allows
Simmel, according to Ward, to suggest two types of non-market value. One is
aesthetic value and the other is a sort of value intrinsic to the object itself.
Of course such value really isn’t intrinsic; we just socially define it as such,
which is much the same. Ward claims that cultural antiquities belong to this
privileged class. Their theft and subsequent demotion to the economic
marketplace tears a hole in our common historical and cultural identity.
Neil Brodie’s essay is concerned with the ambivalence of the academic community
to the looting of antiquities, especially historic manuscripts. Some academics
decry the loss of context for stolen artifacts, but others see manuscripts as
fair game for scholarship, however obtained. He sees as singularly absent from
consideration the ethical implications of the scholarly use of stolen material.
Brodie suggests that a partial explanation lies in the dependence of
academicians on dealers for material for scholarly research, and the dealer’s
use of the academicians for translation, evaluation, and publication of
manuscripts. Given the available knowledge on the extent of illegality in the
market for historical manuscripts, Brodie believes academic discussion should be
more open to the discussion of criminality. But, of course, this would involve
the issue of academic complicity in illegal markets.
Gordon Lobay’s
contribution deals with the likelihood of success for international agreements
designed to prevent the marketing of looted antiquities. He uses as an example
the agreement between Italy and the United States restricting importation of
ancient Roman antiquities. Lobay reports on a study conducted to determine the
effect of law on sales of antiquities at Sotheby’s and Christie’s in New York.
Variables indicative of success were a reduction in volume of antiquities
reaching the U.S., an increase in provenance information in auction catalogs of
those houses, and an increase in prices achieved at auction.
Lobay found
that a reduction in volume did not take place as predicted, and findings on
price were inconclusive. Provenance information did increase, but only
information on prior sales, which was not the kind of historical record
envisioned in the agreement. In short, the agreement could hardly be seen as a
success. [*717]
Roger Bland’s paper first notes that the division often
made between source countries and market countries can be misleading, especially
in regard to the United Kingdom which has one of the largest markets in stolen
antiquities and yet is, at the same time, a prime source of antiquities of its
own. Its position as a source nation can be explained in part by the history of
the largely ineffective efforts to inhibit the transfer of historical artifacts,
a history which Bland recounts. But part of the problem also lies with an
altogether new marketplace for antiquities -- the Internet, and especially eBay.
The problem with any effort to make eBay the target of law enforcement
efforts is that eBay is never in actual possession of stolen antiquities, and
current laws are based on the presumption of actual possession. In lieu of legal
restraint, there have been efforts to negotiate agreements with eBay – efforts
that Bland does not describe as successful.
Sweden is another source
country for antiquities, but Kallman and Korsell add another dimension to the
destruction of archaeological sites. They make distinction between “find
offenses” and “damage offenses.” The first generally covers looting. The second
covers damage to archaeological sites, not as the result of theft but through
wrongful or negligent land use for agriculture, forestry, or construction. The
authors suggest that in our efforts to explore the market forces that drive the
destruction of cultural heritage we not stop at the underground market for
stolen objects, but consider as well the market forces that drive runaway
construction, deforestation, and the poorly planned expansion of agriculture.
David White describes the relationship between state regulation and the
marketplace as being paradoxical. The vision of the state and its regulatory
powers as being an entity outside of, and imposed on, other social systems –
markets, for example – is misconceived. The relationship between the state and
markets is less antagonistic and more symbiotic, or, perhaps, dialectical.
Markets could not exist without the state due to their inherent tendency to
self-destruct. And the creation and regulation of markets is part of the
defining function of the state.
Given White’s view of the state, it is
difficult to maintain the dichotomous view of legal and illegal markets, since
they are both, in one way or another, creatures of the state. Thus, regulation
of markets, including the market in antiquities, becomes less a process of
imposing and enforcing rules than efforts to survey and manage social relations
within the market.
In the final contribution, Mackenzie and Green note
that one might expect regulating the sale of antiquities would be more effective
in market countries, in part because there are fewer market than source
countries. Because one of the more important market countries is the United
Kingdom, the authors undertook an evaluation of the 2003Act that punishes
dealing in “tainted” cultural objects. By gathering survey and interview data,
they sought to determine the effects of the market reduction strategies
pertaining to looted antiquities that the 2003Act represents. [*718]
They
found the 2003Act to be of limited effectiveness for a variety of reasons. The
Act was not retroactive, and it was difficult to establish that any object was
acquired after the Act’s effective date. In addition, any defendant had to
acquire the object with knowledge or belief that it had been stolen – an element
of a crime always difficult to prove. But perhaps most problematic of all was
the relative lack of will and resources put forth by the government compared to
the money, influence, and legal talent available to museums, collectors, and art
dealers.
The authors do note some hopeful outcomes from the study, and
some changes in current market reduction strategies that might hold promise. At
least, they acknowledge that any of these would be an improvement over the
status quo.
I have nothing but praise for both the overall effort of the
book to suggest a promising relationship between criminology and archaeology as
well as for the information on the illicit market in antiquities provided by the
individual papers. However, as a criminologist, I would like to have seen more
reference to criminology’s rather substantial literature on the theory and
practice of crime prevention as it might be applied to illicit markets in stolen
antiquities. This would seem to be a rich source, largely untapped, by any of
the papers. Perhaps such a discussion could be included in a second edition.
REFERENCES:
Simmel, Georg, and David Frisby. 2004 (3d
ed). THE PHILOSOPHY OF MONEY. Routledge.
*********************
©
Copyright 2010 by the author, Sawyer Sylvester.