And The Verdict Is...

The recent legal victory (see here) of BC Galleries and its owners to have several Han, Qi and Tang dynasty period sculptures, as well as a c. mid 1900s mounted trophy skull from the Philippines, returned to sender, has greatly challenged the efficacy of current Cultural Property import and export laws in Australia. While those of us who have been directly involved in this case are still very relieved that the Iron Age Cambodian artifacts and human remains were repatriated (see here), we were left flabbergasted about this final verdict.

As I understand it, the aspect of this verdict that alleges innocence due to a lack of proof on behalf of the prosecution that the artifacts in question genuinely came from within China's borders is as shocking as it is problematic. Unless the dealer was deliberately trying to sell forgeries produced on the well-attested-to Hong Kong forgeries market (e.g. here), something even some honest collectors are acknowledging (here), then the origin of these allegedly authentic antiquities within the borders of modern China ("owner" of Hong Kong since 1997) is all but certain.

Also relevant is the historically and archaeologically attested fact that Hong Kong and the Guangzhou region itself flourished as a trading centre during the specific dynasties in question, especially the Tang (for general background, see here and here). The question of what to do with confiscated artifacts seized within the border of a modern country that once was controlled by an empire with its headquarters in another modern country is always tricky (Roman coins, anyone?). However, in my opinion, it has long since lost its utility as an excuse to cover up smuggling or provenance manipulation.

As someone privy to the original verdict as handed down, I would also suggest that the argument used to get the trophy skull returned is quite flawed. I can share with readers that an internationally renowned expert in human osteology was asked to take cranial and facial measurements of the skull and run this data through a program routinely used in forensic cases to determine the most likely genetic ancestry of an unidentified person. Several runs of the dataset consistently showed the skull to derive from an Asian population distinctly not native to the Philippines. When mounted as a trophy by former "head hunters," it was thereby modified and adopted into the tangible cultural heritage corpus of the ethnic minority group in question.

Importantly, it would have been bought and sold by middle-men, and eventually by BC Galleries, as an ethnographic "curio" from the Philippines! However, because the craniometric measurements suggested a non-native ancestry for the skull in question, all other claims were rendered null and void. Really?!! If a local or international dealer was attempting to sell, say, the freshly dug up remains of a WWII veteran (of any nationality), straight from the grave...THAT is a different story. In that case, forensic osteological techniques would be ideal to help confirm a recent war casualty and affect appropriate repatriation. Not in this instance...

The article first sited above raises one last, worrying point. The verdict as currently stands does, to me, allegedly imply that it will be harder for the Australian government, international authorities via local embassies, and lawyers and criminological professionals advocating against the illicit trade to force and follow through with new seizures, especially against moneyed defendants. What is needed now to further the global fight are more up-to-date (and update-able) databases that can quantify temporal trends and regional and intra-national variation, especially regarding the smaller, portable, or more "common" artifacts that so often escape confiscation or media attention.

Information such as this would greatly assist outreach efforts towards the general public, producing consultable resources for customs officers in source and demand countries, museums, and even those responsible dealers and collectors who wished to consult the reports produced. There are currently several teams (e.g. Trafficking Culture) and independent scholars engaged in such research, and come December, a colleague and I will join these efforts. When things get fully underway, details will be shared as events warrant. Stay tuned!

A quick detour...

I couldn't let this news story pass me by without commenting on it here. It appears that the Jordan River Bank site, on the northern edge of suburban Hobart, Tasmania, is to have a highway built above it, despite previous coverage, and local activists and academic and consultant archaeologists attesting to its extreme importance as a likely meeting place/lithic manufacturing centre from c. 42,000BP into historic times (see here as well). Despite reassurances from engineers that the site (a sandbank separate from the river's main course) will not be disturbed by construction, the incredible artifact density (potentially up to three million stone tools or flakes left over from manufacture, left behind on several "living floors" deposited over the millennia), and the fact that the site was only discovered last year, strongly suggests there is more to uncover there. The preliminary archaeological report provides a more technical assessment of the site's importance, for those interested.

At a price tag of $60 million AUD and two additional years suggested by local governmental authorities to be needed to survey a new route for the highway, it is doubtful that calls for preservation will be heeded in the end. At the very least, perhaps further excavation can be carried out to uncover/salvage as much of the site as possible. Obviously, this post does not pertain directly to looting, and there is no reason to suggest any prehistoric (as opposed to ethnographic) artifacts from the site or region have ended up on the market, but it's impossible to know if any local surface collecting has occurred. Hopefully this won't be the case if/when a construction crew descends on the site. I will return to the post series in progress soon, but as controversial, heritage relevant stories from this part of the world often get overlooked overseas, I felt it important to share.

Recent News of Interest...

This is a quick post about a few recent news items of interest which once again have come to my attention through Museum Security Network. It is in advance of a post on the SAFECorner blog which will detail my own personal participation in the "hand back ceremony" for several looted Iron Age bronze artifacts, many still containing human remains, that occurred two days ago at the Cambodian Ambassador's residence here in Canberra, Australia. Lead-in information can be found here, and in this blog post by a friend and co-attendee of the ceremony, Mr. Noel Hidalgo-Tan, also of the ANU. More to come on this!

The first article of interest appeared in the New York Times March 10th edition, and details how the members of three separate archaeological organizations (unnamed in the article) have written to the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to express concern over its planned hosting of an exhibition centred around the artifacts recovered from a 9th century shipwreck of an Arab dhow, sunk in the Java Sea, but "salvaged" by a German company called Seabed Exploration GbR, according to the article. The critics attest that, due to this company's alleged faulty methods, valuable information was lost in the 'salvage,' as opposed to what can be gained through more controlled excavation, even in a challenging underwater environment. Issues surrounding methodology and ethics in shipwreck archaeology are not new concerns. Furthermore, the article attests that most of these artifacts were sold to a private company in Singapore for $32 million, and the exhibit just happens to now be on display in the ArtScience Museum there. A panel meeting to discuss the archaeological community's concerns is scheduled to occur in advance of a final decision to display the exhibit.

The next article concerns the repatriation of the skeletal remains of 138 Indigenous people, likely from Torres Straight Islanders, although only 19 individuals have been thoroughly provenanced to "one of the Torres Straight Islands," according to the article. The rest are believed to derive from either the Torres Straight, southern Papua New Guinea or northern Cape York Australia. The exact details of the 'testing' done to confirm this prior to repatriation is not stated, but from the range of possible points of geographic origin, I would assume that minute samples of tooth enamel have been tested for isotopic 'signatures' of the elements strontium and/or oxygen; a by-now common means of 'sourcing' skeletal remains, although not without controversy.

From ethnographic accounts, none of the remains are posited to be more than 200 years old, and most were collected from caves, although a few "trophy skulls" are part of the assemblage. I personally feel that good points were raised on both sides as to why repatriation should eventually occur, but also why and how new developments in archaeological and bioarchaeological science (my field, after all) can continue to shed light on ancient remains. The state of mutual cooperation and agreement reached in this case is arguably the best possible outcome, but one that still occurs far too infrequently when debating repatriation cases. All parties involved should be commended on reaching such an equitable decision!

Repatriation Down Under

In the spirit of a recent post over on the SAFECorner blog, regarding the repatriation of Native American remains under NAGPRA laws, now 20years on, I would like to take this opportunity to share a repatriation story from my adopted "home," Australia. This story conserns the return and reburial of two adult skeletons, ceremonially wrapped in bark cloth and buried according to the still-living mortuary customs of the Bundjalung people, whose Country lies near Lismore, New South Wales, after being stored for 200 years at the Leiden University Medical Centre in Holland.

Originally spirited out of Australia for "research purposes" by the famed botanist Joseph Banks, they were seemingly quickly forgotten about until an effort was made to identify and track them down as part of Australia's "National Repatriation Program," overseen by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Ethnographers from the National Museum of Australia, here in Canberra, as well as the Dutch ambassador (left nameless in this article), helped to assure their smooth transfer to the National Museum, and then Southern Cross University (near Lismore) upon their return to Australia, while two Bundjalung community elders (Gwenn Hickling and John Morrissey) traveled to Leiden to oversee the first stage of the repatriation. What is especially touching to me is the immense pride that several younger members of the community felt knowing these 'old people' have now returned. This even included the singing of a Welcome song by Goonellabah Public School students in the local language, part of continuing efforts at cultural and linguistic preservation/revival. Good on them!

It is not specified as to how much, if any, the remains were anthropologically or osteologically studied and recorded before repatriation occurred, nor what exact criteria was used to determine that the Bundjalung community are the closest living descendants. Like much of coastal temparate/tropical Australia, the Lismore/Richmond Rivers area would've been home to numerous small, linguistically distinct groups at the time of European contact. This, to me, demostrates that 100% certain, 1:1 examples of archaeological/ethnohistoric remains being matched to one particular ethnic group is still problematic across much of Autralia, as it is in America, Canada, and anywhere else that Western contact saw the forced movement and mixing of peoples. Indeed, there are even claims, primarily made by the descendants of European settlers, that the peoples known as Arakwal and Bundjalung "don't exist," but the validity of this is hotly contested. However, it is possible that supporting documentation/"labeling" by Banks himself might have been curated along with the remains and associatied mortuary artifacts. Nevertheless, this is an event that should be celebrated by all, given the solace it has so obviously provided. As Elder Bertha Kapeen stated, "It's very significant for Aboriginal people everywhere, not just here."

You call this "Archaeology," do you?

Yet another one... This time I direct you towards this VCoins.com and Trocadero affiliated dealer, simply called "Archaeology." Seriously. Operating out of Bendigo, Victoria, since 1996 (online since 2002), Mr. and Mrs. Munday claim to have, over their 12 years of operation, "formed fabulous relationships with dealers," primarily working with Licenced Antiquities Dealers in the Holyland (Israel). They boast that they have also received materials, of unstated provenance and collection history, from the former Museum of Biblical History in Columbus, Ohio (what, exactly, happened to it?). Indeed, through their "expertise" (primarily, it seems, in Classical World coins) they "hope to be able to help you with your collection, gift, or coffee table talking point" (italics mine). Coffee table talking point?!

There's nothing new about how they advertise their wares. Prices are usually offered, sometimes with discounts, sometimes noting what's been sold. No provenance, no collecting history, no mention of how these European and Middle Eastern coins made it to "a small country town" in Australia. However, what I want to highlight is the following statement: "We not only love our business, but also love ancient history and the fantastic feeling of connection with the past that antiquities and ancient coins provide the bearer. We hope to be able to share our passion and enthusiasm with you as we display our fantastic range of ancient history and art." If unsatisfied, items can be returned for a full refund, but if they come back damaged, don't worry...purchaser and supplier can just "talk about what went wrong." Really?!

The existence of stores like this represents, to me, the very fringes of the "no questions asked" antiquities trade. It is unfortunate to find them apparently alive and well in Australia, and using the same tired rhetoric used by dealerships/galleries big and small.

The AAADA, Ethics, and Justifications...

The AAADA (Australian Antique and Art Dealer's Association) represents the largest professional network of on and off-line dealers in Australia. Although they have been mentioned before on this blog in association with the highly-suspect dealings of two affiliated galleries specializing in antiquities (BC Galleries and The Unique Things Store), nearly every medium to large scale online dealer of antiques or antiquities (from contemporary pieces to ancient artifacts) are registered members. Founded in 1992, and now boasting "more than 130 national members," the AAADA is "your brand for quality," where "your purchase is guaranteed and your transaction professional." This from the official online "Message" of President Warwick Oakman, who himself has a gallery dealing in recent antiques.

To further bolster the confidence of a gallery's clients who might investigate just who the AAADA is, upon finding out their favourite gallery is a member affiliate, the President's "Message," and web-site in general, advertises dozens of specialized service providers (conservators to customs and insurance agents to interior designers) to make sure that clients "get the most" out of their purchases. Since 2001, the AAADA has even offered an annual showcase of dealers and their wares, "the only event of its type fully vetted for quality and description." Underlying the Association's function is a "Code of Practice," to which all prospective members must, apparently, swear to uphold. As will be discussed in more detail, it appears that oversight of these standards is minimal, at least where antiquities are concerned.

While I must again emphasize that the vast majority of dealers affiliated with AAADA appear to offer only recent/contemporary antiques (entirely different from antiquities with former archaeological contexts), the points I will highlight from the "Code of Practice" are supposed to apply to everyone. So, for example, Rule #1b requires that all dealers list the price, manufacturing date, material, maker's mark (if relevant), and restorations for each item offered, and to state upfront if something is a reproduction or not. What about provenance or collecting history? Apparently not... Rule #2 requires that "the member shall not attempt to confuse or mislead the customer or falsely describe any of the goods he/she offers for sale or seeks to purchase." Is this another barrier against the selling of forgeries? Rule #4 requires that "members shall accept responsibility for descriptions of items given to members of the public by their staff." This rule seems to have been added to make sure no dealer can pass the buck onto their "underlings" if caught selling forgeries....but what about selling recent dug-ups?

Rule #5: "Members shall not make unsolicited visits to private domestic premises" struck me as strange. Does this actually happen? Is this to mitigate against shady back-room dealing? Rules #7 and 8 seem to absolve the Association of responsibility if a member dealer or gallery gets into trouble, while rule #10 requires that "members cooperate to the best of their ability with consumer protection agencies (e.g. the police, trading standards authorities). At the end of the list, the webpage states that, although the AAADA can not act on any wronged parties legal behalf, they do offer Conciliation Services to mitigate disputes. Why go through all this trouble if everything is above board to begin with? Furthermore, if the AAADA is so concerned with being Australia's foremost representative body for the licit sale of antiques, why allow any galleries in the much more risky/controversial antiquities trade to join? For that matter, why is the President's own gallery listed an an antiquities dealer?

Under the section of the webpage entitled "Our Services," something else suspicious came to my attention. When discussing how viewers of the website can "collect antiques with confidence" when purchasing from an AAADA affiliated gallery, the requirements that "members seek to advance the professional reputation of the Association," and "build long term relationships with their clients" are stressed. However, this point is also offered: "Clients wishing to form collections are able to do this discreetly and with complete confidence." Huh?! What need is discretion when only above-board, recent or contemporary antiques are being purchased? Does this imply that some member dealers are known to be less-legitimate than they let on, even with supposed adherence to the Code of Practice? Or...is that addendum merely to shield those who look for AAADA affiliation when they purchase antiquities off the black market? I feel this is a question needing answering.

In regards to the AAADA's stated international affiliations, I must highlight a further point. As Australia (and New Zealand, and all Southern Hemisphere markets for that matter) are still somewhat off-mainstream in terms of the global antiquities markets, it only makes sense that major dealer networks representing Southern Hemisphere countries would themselves be affiliated with larger networks. In this case, AAADA is a member of C.I.N.O.A. (as highlighted on my first post about BC Galleries). CINOA, out of Brussels, is Europe's largest art/antiquities dealing association, with most international/online dealers under its umbrella-and located in a country which even today is known as a major world centre for the trade.

I highlight the following sentence: "Through its membership of C.I.N.O.A., the international trade Association, it takes part in decisions of international and environmental heritage importance. These decisions can also affect your rights and ability to continue to enjoy collecting antiques for private use." Paul Barford has done an excellent job of demonstrating just how convoluted the "collector's rights" arguments have become, and the less-than-stellar responses to open questions that proponents of the no-questions-asked trade perpetually give. Leaving aside a potential scenario of the purchase of, say, a 19th century clock made using wood from a now endangered tree species, or the shipment of objects needing biological quarantine (which would run up against relevant environmental legislation and be subject to severe import restrictions, coming into Australia at least), it seems to me that a proviso such as this would only apply to the antiquities trade.

I'll now provide a couple of examples, from two different member galleries, to illustrate that, at least as far as antiquities are concerned, AAADA membership seems to be little more than a front, with the Code of Practice not being visibly adhered to. The first comes from Moorabool Antique Galleries, out of Geelong, Victoria. While specializing primarily in historic to recent period ceramics, they also deal in "glass, silver, artworks, and tribal & antiquities." As of today, there are 90 artifacts offered under antiquities, but only a few have pictures available and almost none have any stated collecting history (outside of the occasional previous sale at Christies or Bonhams, or the break-up of some c. 1980s private museum). See this Neolithic Thai ceramic pot and this Iranian buffware zoomorphic vessel for good examples! Look for a more detailed blog post on this specific gallery soon. These two antiquities (here and here), for sale via the Peter Lane Gallery out of Adelaide, have even less information attached to them. So, where's the oversight? What assurance can AAADA membership provide to a prospective honest collector that they're not being cheated if some affiliated galleries don't even offer the prices they're selling their antiquities for, let alone any pertinent background?

To close, while the AAADA might be a good idea in principle, and be able to quite capably handle its ethical and legal oversight responsibilities in representation of Australian dealers on the international stage when it comes to recent antiques, it seems that it has some explaining to do in regards to what it lets antiquities dealers get away with. Constant vigilance!

Soo Tze Oriental Gallery: A small contribution from Tasmania?

Another gallery, dealing in a mixture of contemporary, recent historic, and ancient art and antiquities, has come to my attention as needing mention here; another member of the Southern Hemisphere (and more specifically, Australian) trading "scene." Soo Tze Oriental Galleries is currently based out of Hobart, Tasmania (since 2005), but previously operated out of a Melbourne shop since 1983, with an online presence since June, 2003. To quote from their online homepage, it "is now Australia's premier private gallery dealing in a broad range of Buddhist and related art and ethnographic materials from Tibet, Mongolia, Nepal, China, and Bhutan, in addition to works from the rest of Asia." Furthermore, they highlight the "broad time span" and "high quality" of their products, and the self-stated fact that "items from our inventory [are] now found in many of the best private collections, galleries and museums around the world."

All signs point to this dealer operating a very small enterprise, or at the very least running a very controlled on-line store, as only six categories of artifacts/contemporary art are listed, each with very few items on display at any one time. These categories are "sculptures," "paintings," "objets d'art" (i.e. "small functional and decorative items...dating from 1000BCE to the 19th century"), "rugs & textiles," and "Tsakali and miniature thangkas." Leaving aside those objects that are being sold as contemporary art, ethnographica, or recent pieces (very few of which have displayed provenance regardless....provenance DOES matter, even for recent acquisitions), I will now turn to those few pieces recognizable as suspect antiquities.

What first made me determined to report about this gallery is this vessel, said to come from the site of Ban Prasat, northeast Thailand. Nearly identical examples are also on display at the Phimai museum. As is all too common, no provenance information, collecting history, or even price, is given for this artifact on sale. Without holding it in my hands, determining its authenticity just from photographs is difficult, but the form, color, and shape all match... Other artifacts, like this "Liao Dynasty copper funerary mask," this "repousse copper Linga cover," c. 17th century Nepal (albeit with provenance stated as from a 1994 Christie's auction), or this fragment of "Yuan Dynasty silk," are all equally suspicious to me. Although China has long been known for a thriving fake antiquities industry, most dealers naturally try to do their best, and stake their reputations, on the fact that they only offer genuine artifacts to the best of their knowledge. The fact that no prices are given, to me, points to even more suspicious dealings...artifacts, albeit in small quantities, bought and sold for a select group of favourite customers perhaps?

The burden of proof is now on Soo Tze Oriental Gallery to either provide evidence that due diligence has been conducted on these objects (and, ideally, make this information available as part of the listing for each artifact offered), or admit that they haven't, and remove from sale anything demonstrated to be a forgery or a recently surfaced artifact. If they can't and won't comply with these basic ethical standards to foster a licit and non-destructive trade, preferring to continue with business-as-usual, then they will be further exposed as such.

Is it really just "Old Money"?

Much has been written, both academically and on blogs, regarding the logistics, ethics, complexities, and archaeological significance of the trade in ancient coins world wide, but particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. For example, the Archaeology and Numismatics blog frequently provides new information concerning the deleterious effect that the wholesale removal and trade in ancient coins can have to the larger archaeological record of those locations and time periods in which coins routinely surface during excavation; primarily within Mediterranean countries. In short, it is becoming increasingly well documented that coins, even commonly minted coins, out of context, are as "adrift" as any other category of artifact. Furthermore, the ongoing blogging by another colleague of mine, Mr. Paul Barford (Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues), has been consistently monitoring and responding to the sometimes voracious and vociferous extents that the majority of the pro-collecting lobbies and "activists" in the Northern Hemisphere, primarily England and the USA, can go to in order to keep the trade in illicit recently-surfaced 'dugups' going, while branding all opposition as baseless propaganda by "cultural heritage nationalist" radicals. As usual, the Southern Hemisphere is still widely overlooked in this discussion. This blog post will report my observations and thoughts about one such dealer; namely "Walter Holt's Old Money" ("In proud association with M.R. Roberts' Wynyard Coin Centre").

Based out of Sydney, the Wynyard Centre maintains its own newsgroup (with all subscribing members receiving a free copy of NUM$NEWS ("Numis News"), the official newsletter of Walter Holt's Old Money), although no separate webpage or online order forms could be located for this gallery specifically. Mr. Holt began collecting at 14, he has spent the intervening years amassing a large collection while traveling, meeting people, and seeing "scores of wonderful places," all of which have helped him "gather substantial knowledge about ancient coins and the places from which they come." Nothing mentioned about how they arrive on the market, or when, or from whom...? Initial efforts to emphasize the antiquity and authenticity of the coins for sale was first encountered on the "Old Money" homepage itself, on which Mr. Holt clearly advises potential customers that "if you have a 1915 Sovereign or a 1952 Australian Penny then DO NOT call me - it's not ancient, I can't help you. Ok! Basically, if it isn't well over a thousand years old, I may not be able to help you unless it is a British hammered coin. Thanks!" The seeming exasperation noted in the above quote suggests to me that Mr. Holt has encountered this problem before, and only the rare will suffice for sale.

"Old Money" is a direct subsidiary, for sales purposes, of the world-wide online clearing house "VCoins.com," and also maintains links to "A.S.A.N." (Australian Society of Ancient Numismatics), provides many related books or identification guides for perusal or purchase, as well as detailed guidelines for customers to learn how to correctly interpret coin quality, description, and mint of origin (in antiquity) information when browsing. Consistently absent from all catalog entries and supporting information is clear indication of provenance for any artifacts offered for sale. Most lack any indication of a collection, museum, or archaeological site of origin, or the year or decade of acquisition by Old Money. In short, it seems that this Southern Hemisphere dealer is borrowing liberally from the play book of Northern Hemisphere colleagues. A "free-market" antiquities trade, no questions asked.

Ancient coins are not the only antiquities traded in by Old Money. A link is also provided to a separate webpage offering a small selection of Greek, Roman, and Egyptian artifacts. As readers and potential customers can see, much information on artifact condition, hieroglyphic text translation, and academic background is provided up front, along with age and price. Perhaps information about date and place of 'surfacing,' and pre-1970 collection/auction history is provided with purchase...perhaps not. I strongly suspect that, like the coins, no one knows for sure. Perhaps Old Money feels that they make up for this dubiousness by suggesting the services of an on-call hieroglyphics specialist?! Authenticity above legality?

This is certainly not the only such coin dealer in the Southern Hemisphere, especially located as it is within a major 'importing' nation like Australia. The fact that Old Money is well connected to VCoins.com, and that they advertise international shipping, indicates that although their operations are small, they are not overly isolated from new "merchandise." This does not appear to be merely the gradual sale of a single, large deaccessioned private collection. Indeed, Mr. Holt has boasted about his past and current travels. Although the mere act of purchasing is legal, the sale of small, "common" objects such as coins is still antiquities trading. As this article documenting the various uses for coins in Medieval Italy, and this image showing a Late Romano-British grave good assemblage for an adult male indicate, coins have diverse contexts in their own right! It is now up to all concerned citizens, ethical archaeological, historical and numismatic professionals, and investigative authorities to keep monitoring operations such as these, and to not purchase from such organizations without upfront and verifiable proof that, at the very least, the coin in question did not just recently 'surface Down Under.'

New Zealand joins the club: Antiquarius

I can now report that there is at least one well-established source for illicit antiquities in the country of New Zealand, a country that is generally seen as being even more "off-radar" on the world scene than the major galleries of Australia. This time I'm specifically referring to "Antiquarius," a dealer with an online presence since 1980. Robert and Jenny Loosely, according to their website, both received their start in the antiquities business under the watch of Seaby Limited, the London based numismatists in operation since 1969, founding Antiquarius in 1980. This would explain, then, why the very same "About Antiquarius" page of their website makes it clear that their specialty is "ancient coins and classical antiquities," with a market of "predominately Australasian clients." As expected, this implies that they regularly face something of an isolation by distance problem when it comes to getting access to new "merchandise," requiring regular travel to Europe and the US. Of course, the "authenticity" of all purchases is stressed up front, with certificates provided, and FREE shipping and insurance.

What really surprised me, however, was the statement that "Antiquarius is New Zealand's only official valuer for the Commonwealth of Australia..." Really? The "expert appraisers" over at BC Galleries weren't available? This 'outsourcing' by the antiquities trading community in Australia suggests to me a closer connection between operations in the two countries than suspected. The contacts page directs you to Mr. Loosely's P.O. Box in Auckland (suggesting it is this city that operations are based out of), but, for a limited time only, the Mark Hutchins Gallery, a contemporary art gallery out of Wellington, will host an exhibition of choice Classical World artifacts juxtaposed with locally produced modern art; for example, this South Italian pelike (from an "old English collection." Really? Which one? Whose? Where and when acquired?). From the website, it does not appear that these artifacts are available for on-the-spot purchasing, thus it seems to me that exposure is the goal.

Their catalogue is divided into the following categories: "Antiquities" (with Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Cypriot, Near Eastern, Far Eastern, Jewelry, and "Under $200" subcategories), "Coins" (Greek and Roman),"New Items," "New Coins," and three somewhat odd sounding subcategories under the heading of "Themes" ("Wine," "Animals," and "Cults & Religion"). One may search the website, or invent a username and password to receive updates and browse more freely. The vast majority of artifacts proffered as catalog entries merely list their price and a brief description of form, function and/or chronology, with a zoom-able photograph available. For examples, see this pair of "Late Dynastic Period c. 600BC" gold earrings, or this rare "Old Babylonian cylinder seal c. 1850-1650BC). No supporting documentation or information provided up front. For all intents and purposes, it is arguable that they have just 'surfaced'! While some larger, more bulky items are for sale, such as this Han Dynasty horse sculpture from China (which would have required much more preparatory work to smuggle into the country, even if the purchase that exports it again is well-documented), the majority of the rather modest collection viewable online is of small, easily transportable items, such as coins, or this "pleasing"(!) Roman North African sherd decorated with a goat motif.

Two other aspects of this antiquities dealership, as self-advertised via their website, surprised me. The first is the near-complete lack of Asian (let alone Southeast Asian) artifacts on offer. While the web-site does imply that Antiquarius seeks to be affiliated first and foremost with the Classical antiquities trade (in which the Loosely's received their start), bypassing the much closer source of antiquities emanating from Southeast Asia, countries with substantially looser borders in this regards, seems to me unusual. Perhaps they realize that other galleries, in Australia and elsewhere, have the market cornered? Of course, it might be that numerous Southeast Asian artifacts are waiting in their storerooms to be eventually rotated into the online catalog, but it seems doubtful. The second is an even more troubling thought. As their website states, they are "Advisers to Australasian museums and universities" as well. This begs the question: What otherwise reputable academic and professional institutions are they connected to? Perhaps, as claimed, they merely share their acquired "appraising" expertise. If, however, artifacts are loaned for display, teaching purposes, or are bought and sold between countries, what does this say about the complacency behind the modern-day antiquities trade, globally and in the Southern Hemisphere?

New Zealand, like Australia, is a signatory of both the Antiquities Act of 1975 and the UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions, which allow New Zealand to reclaim "protected objects" greater than 50 years old from other countries, AND all other signatory countries to do that same if their cultural property is currently being illegally held in New Zealand. The open sale of extra-local antiquities with no clear or stated original provenance, or supporting documentation, provided on the catalog, flies in the face of these conventions, and requires much greater attention from all concerned.

By Way of Introduction....

So, where to begin? How can one blog written by one person help the world to better get a handle on the scope of the global antiquities trade today, the trickery and outright greed that keep it going, and the urgency and necessity of keeping up the fight?

Not sure yet....but this blog will represent my best efforts to join with others by presenting a forum for keeping tabs on at least one half of it; that overlooked portion of the trade that increasingly flows through galleries, warehouses, auction houses, and private hands throughout the Southern Hemisphere.

Although the gist of my blogging will pertain to galleries operating out of, news stories emanating from, and general facts and opinions about, dealing and dealers from Australia and New Zealand, eventually I can see this blog covering the entire breadth of the hemisphere, in which, in my opinion (and much discussion and, I hope, debate to follow), the wealthy "first-world" countries have been long overlooked as destinations for illicit loot, while specific regions, like Southeast Asia and South America, remain active sources. Yet even with the "bad-old-days" of, say, the wholesale dismantling of an entire Angkorian temple wall in Cambodia largely curtailed due to at least somewhat increased UNESCO monitoring, local law enforcement, the gradual bolstering of museums, and ongoing local public outreach, the antiquities trade (in Cambodia and throughout Southeast Asia) has shifted focus to survive, and unfortunately remains as active as ever. Indeed, my Heritage Watch colleagues continue to rightly state that looting in Cambodia "has reached epic proportions." All evidence points to a similarly active trade in South America...and the situation in Africa (outside of Egypt and Roman North Africa) is even more sparsely reported on!

This blog will also seek to touch on that oft-discussed meme of "Who owns heritage?," as it uniquely applies to relationships between richer and poorer countries of this region. What does having a predominantly wealthy, "European" derived population, these days becoming increasingly multi-ethnic (and with much of that ethnic diversity coming from Asia), with "exotic" Southeast Asia "in its back yard" imply for the continued fueling of the Southern Hemisphere trade? Why is evidence for the looting and sale of Pacific Island prehistoric artifacts so infrequently encountered? Is the sale of Australian Aboriginal or Maori prehistoric artifacts (and the deliberate looting or surface collection on private property that implies) as severe (or high profile) as that affecting Native American sites in North America? And again...outside of Egypt and Mali...what's going on in Africa? Especially Southern Africa, with its more entrenched European-derived population and a more lingering legacy of colonialism.

Finally, I hope to include one other aspect (feature, if you will) of this blog. Where the situation warrants, I will do my best to provide examples of exactly what kinds of information and data have been lost to provide the market with a looted artifact (to borrow Paul Barford's term, a "dugup"). Sure, we in the archaeological/heritage preservation community always talk about "context" (and our detractors use their overall misunderstanding of the term, and what we archaeologists mean when we say it, to perpetually deride us), but to me it seems that understanding of this concept for most people, especially those who are still indecisive about whether to purchase antiquities or not, is still rather abstract. I'm convinced that a blog is an appropriate multi-media enabling format to convey the deeper meanings of what context can tell an archaeologist, or a bioarchaeologist. To take one very recent and gruesome example, the photo above left is one of two catalog entries recently on sale by BC Galleries, out of Melbourne. As you can see, a late Iron Age (c. 500AD or so) bronze bangle with grave fill and human bones still inside was on offer for $650AUD! It was recently taken down....but where has it gone?

If you arrive at this blog because you have previously read my posts for SAFECorner, then great! Rest assured, I will remain active in my roles with SAFE as well.

So there you have it, future readers! I do hope you'll check back regularly as I get the blog up and rolling. I'll leave it to you to let me know if I'm doing my job, and feel free to send blog-worthy content my way. Constant vigilance!

Sincerely,
Damien