Thursday 23 June 2011

Dr Bob, The Greek Businessman and the Trade in Illicit Antiquities

.
A bloke calling himself thedrbob has joined the "Looting Matters" discussion on 'The scale of the market' with two comments which point out that the size of the market in illicit antiquities is undiminished by recent concerns:
The prices realized from these sales and the estimated value of the suggested inventories clearly indicate that all of the anti-collecting hype against the antiquities market is ineffective. [...] The market is robust and is apparently ignoring all of the anti-collecting hype.
He later amended this to a question:
The sums realized from the recent antiquities auctions and the suggested value of alleged inventories suggests that the antiquities market is both robust and flourishing. [...] Is one, therefore, to conclude that all of this anti-collecting hype is just that, hype, without any effect whatsoever on the actual market?
The term "anti-collecting hype" deserves comment. "Thedrbob" was writing on "Looting Matters" and I really do think it unfair to dismiss the work Dr Gill does (see his list of publications) as mere "hype". But of course dismissive belittling is the preferred weapon of the antiquity collector and dealer (see Sayles' comments in the same thread). I would be interested to learn what "Thedrbob" feels about what can quite justifiably be considered "pro-collecting hype" - the views put out by collectors and dealers to try and convince a wider public that there is no real problem of illicit antiquities, and anyway all this so-called "cultural property retentionalism" is an evil construction based on reprehensible nationalism and applied by corrupt un-American governments and their brown-skinned unwashed ignorant subjects who cant really be trusted as much as an American collector to look after those bits of the world's archaeological heritage that happen to be found in their country. That collectors of dugups are an elite of connoisseurs and scholars not only "passionate about the past", and not only adding to our knowledge of the past, but through their cosmopolitanism and inter-cultural "understanding" leading to the dissemination of peace and love in the world. Now, wouldn't "The Dr Rob" consider that "hype"? So how do you combat the spread of such ideas among the general populace? Erudite papers in obscure archaeological journals on the ethics and politics of archaeological research published in the Netherlands? I bet "The Dr Rob" could not even give the name of one such journal, let alone say what was in the latest issue. Or is there not a place alongside such works for a more populist approach? Is that not what the collectors and dealers not doing? (Except as a milieu, they don't really do the "erudite paper" bit very well.)

As for the reason for the discussions of the illicit trade which "The Dr Rob" labels "just hype", surely the problem is that the concerns expressed are formulated because of and not in opposition to the size of the market in illicitly-obtained antiquities. If it were not a problem, there would be little discussion of it. "Thedrbob" is an idealist if he thinks that once collectors and dealers become aware of the issues involved in illicit antiquity transactions, they'd stop. On the contrary the trade in such items is not only as he says "robust and flourishing" but those involved in it are actively talking back and even lobbying lawmakers to further reduce restrictions on the trade.

Obviously since dealers and collectors will not be persuaded that there is a need to act more responsibly, then they will have to be constrained by external means, and that in turn means that public opinion has to be turned against them. The ideal is a situation where somebody would admit to having a collection of irresponsibly-obtained antiquities with as much alacrity as they would announce they are going to Kenya on a big game shooting expedition or they have a drawer full of freshly-collected Osprey eggs in their study.

"The Doctor Bob" reckons:
What the report (eh?) also fails to recognize is the sheer number of low end e-commerce sites selling antiquities as well.
This was later expanded to make an additional point:
To that strength must be added the observation that there are an increasing number of low end e-commerce sites offering a wide range of antiquities at moderate prices.
This echoes what another collector said in the same thread:
your way off the mark, i think you will find that illicit antiquities account for far less than you think [...] if you take out the realy expensive antiquities which all have fantastic provenance than you are left in my opinion with a negligible figure.
Well, the Looting Matters blog is perhaps not the best of places to claim that top-end of the market items have good provenances (collecting histories), when the whole point of that resource is that substantial numbers of them do not.

There seems to be the notion that because lots of antiquities do not cost all that much, preserving sites from being dug over to produce them is somehow not important. I really do not see the logic of that. A big hole in an archaeological site is no less a big hole if the only artefacts that it produced sold for 200 dollars instead of 200 000. How much money somebody made out of the end-sale really is no mitigation of archaeological destruction. Doctor Bob made an additional point, the number of outlets of such venues where they sell this stuff is "increasing". The point of this is that back in the nineteenth century an antiquity-collecting toff would have easily accepted something like the Euphronios vase in the hallway or music room, or a nice Roman copy of a hellenistic statue of Apollo in the orangery, he'd be unlikely to have a collection of uncleaned Roman bronze coins or fragments of fibulae stashed away in the portrait gallery. These things were rarely collected by the Grand Tour crowd. So where does Dr Bob think these "minor antiquities' are surfacing from? Almost certainly very rarely from any real (as opposed to mythological - "wink-wink" ) old collections. Its not the lack of cabinet toning on the objects that tells us this. Dealers will make up all sorts of excuses why they cannot demonstrate an actual origin in a real old (e.g., pre-1970) collection of licit items for more than a fraction of what they sell. Collectors may believe these excuses (or pretend to themselves they do). The rest of us cannot avoid the suspicion that these dealers are stringing us all along, and deep in their heart of hearts they know - even if they studiously avoided asking so as not to hear what they'd not want to hear - that these recently surfaced items come from all-too-recent digging on archaeological sites to fuel the no-questions-asked market in illicit antiquities.

4 comments:

kyri said...

hi paul,if your trying to convince me that looting is driving the market than your preeching to the converted,in fact i dont see how anyone can deny the relation between the two but what i was trying to point out is that the high end market ie £50,000 + antiquities just do not sell without cast iron provenances these days and the realy expensive £200k + pieces all have a good provenance and it is these pieces that are inflating the figures.of course in the past this wasnt the case but even you must admit that things have changed espeacialy over the last five years.a few years ago i could consign to bonhams easy now i have to sign a provenance declaration certificate and they want to know were and when the piece was purchased and on a few ocasions contacted the dealer that sold me the piece for confirmation and this for antiquities that are worth no more that 7-800 pounds so i can imagine what they would be doing for a 50k piece.dont get me wrong ,this is a good thing but things are not like in the 80s.
by the way,my parents are greek but i was born in london and lived hear all my life so i consider myself british.
kyri.

Paul Barford said...

Hi Kyri,
I hope you are not offended by the title of the article- it's difficult thinking up catchy titles for "yet another post about the antiquities market". No offence meant (actually you are not mentioned by name) and I assumed that your name and the fact you proudly collect ancient Greek stuff sort-of settled who you "are".

"in fact i dont see how anyone can deny the relation between the two
Well, you tell that to people like Dave Welsh (who I note you called "educated" in a recent post on somebody else's blog [Tompa's?]). He denies it adamantly. He is wrong of course.

To come back to the scale of the argument, I really do think you (and others in that thread on LM) underestimate the value of the market in so-called "minor" antiquities, remember Gill was talking about the worldwide market - which means in African stuff as well as Asian - and what about Russia? Then there is central and south America. There are whole areas of the antiquities market we really hear so little about in the places where these discussions are mainly going on because we tend to concentrate on the areas where people speak English and the other European languages we might know from school.

Cheers.

kyri said...

i wasnt offended paul,i realised that your headline was for dramatic effect.
as for dave welsh,well he is very knowledgeable is he not and his academic credentials speak for themselves.just because someone is "on the other side"dosent mean that they dont have a brain,although by reading some of his posts sometimes even i have my doubts.i like to treat everyone as equal and hear all sides [i was sarcasticly mentiond by tompa as the only collector to congratulate david gill]but david says things that need to be heard,however hard that is for us collectors.the problem is to many people are burying their head in the sand and if we ,as collectors dont put our house in order than im sure that slowly but surely others will.at the end of the day it is us,as buyers who have the real power to change the dealers and guide them to a more ethical stance.
even you must admit that things are alot better these days than 10-15 years ago.the auction houses are crapping it everytime they publish a catalog,they are asking more questions believe me.have you noticed that they only leave a window of 3-4 weeks for their antiquities catalogs to go on line but with other sales they are online 4-6 weeks before the sale
as for the value of the trade,well how long is a piece of string,but i would say a few hundred million,certainly not billions but again in everysale you may get 4-5 pieces whose total exceeds the rest of the sale put togeather and these pieces are usally well documented so the illicit market[and by that i mean unprovenanced pieces] i still believe is about 25% of the total sales because it is mostly made up of cheaper antiquities.but at the end of the day we can all throw figures arround but its all guess work.
kyri.
ps,i am very proud of my greek roots,just in case because of my last post you may think im not.

Paul Barford said...

Well, we will have to agree to disagree over Welsh, I think he argues most unintelligently. His qualifications are as an engineer, you will note (since he has at times commented on my publication record) he has very few - if any - publications in any peer-reviewed numismatic journals of any standing. More to the point, when he has been questioned on points he has made he is never able (or willing) to come back with any justification of the views he expresses (like the "hoards=battlefields" model he is fond of). Such things make it very difficult for us to take him seriously, and that is before he starts his "death threat" posturing.

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.