Homework Sucks!

As many of you out there can recall from your school days, not doing your homework, even just once or twice, would almost surely make you fall behind. Some might cheat to try to catch up, some might beg "the smart kid" for answers (but I'll be your best friend!), and some might accept their fate and be more diligent.

This metaphor perfectly sums up the moral of a story that has recently come to my attention. A figurative cry for help has reached me, in the form of a comment left on my VERY first blog entry for SAFE, way back in April, 2010. Who would've imagined anyone still read that far back?! Let's see what's going on.

As you can see if you click on the link above, on October 24th, someone simply going by the name Mo has commented. In it, he informs myself (and all of SAFE) that he'd recently bought five rings from BC Galleries (referred to as a Local Antique shop...does this mean he's in Melbourne)? He wants my personal help in ID'ing/authenticating, as he's "not good at Hellenic culture." Right...like I am?!

The story continues with the assertion that he's a "university accounting student also interested in Antique," but that he went ahead and spent $2,700 US (allegedly) on these rings...without getting anything independently verified first! If this is true, I'd also assume that he only found out about SAFE and my blog post after the fact. One would hope! He goes on to beg my help as, apparently, he could find no appropriate specialists in Australia (not even at the undisclosed "Local Museum"). No experts, he says? Perhaps it's merely that he's worried the experts won't help...because since when is it their responsibility? They have enough on their plates! I have thus become his "last hope."

So, seems like Mo wants me to "do his homework" for him, perhaps after the fact. Either he's clueless and got had, so now reaches out to whomever he can in the hope that someone can assuage his buyer's remorse with a vindication that he's purchased real items...and to hell with considerations such as import/export legality or whether he's holding "toxic antiquities."

On the other hand, would a Uni accounting student (!) with apparently some cash to blow (lucky him!) buy no-questions-asked online? Wouldn't you want to talk to the dealer in person first? Would any but the most gullible ever buy, say, a car from a used-car salesman (not known for their honesty, alas) without performing "due diligence" first?

If anything resembling a licit global market entirely separate and not fed by the illicit market is ever going to exist, if that's even possible, then everyone involved on the demand side has the utmost responsibility to perform due diligence not just afterwards when caught or investigated (or uneasy about one's purchases). When one tries to click on the links to each individual catalog item as offered in his original comment, "not found" messages appear.

Given the numerous evidence-based arguments put forth already that strongly suggest licit can't be separated from illicit in this case (see here and here), I have my doubts. If such a development can ever occur in any meaningful sense, it will be a celebration worthy public policy outcome of new research in this field welcomed by many I'm sure.

As this unexpected example shows, and as we in this scholarly/investigative field continually stress, everyone who voluntarily chooses to further this risky business via "ethical" participation at any level MUST "do their own homework" by asking all the right questions, not just the most pressing afterthoughts.

"Other People's Treasure" Pt. 2: Sybolic Loot?

A brief press release has come to my attention that strikes very close to home for me. In fact, it concerns the one and only "ancient relic" that currently serves as the official "symbol" of University House, where I currently live on the ANU campus (see photo above, courtesy of Bob Miller, The ANU). In fact, it features on all official University House brochures, letterheads, memos etc. Specifically, we now learn that the "2,500 yr old ancient Greek cup" now held by University House (of the Attic tradition) will be on display in the new "Spirit of Enquiry" exhibition at the National Museum of Australia, an exhibit designed to "explore the last 200 years of Australian science, education and ideas." All in all, a fine concept for an exhibit, I agree. However, this does not negate the fact that, in the case of objects like this cup, a looted antiquity is still being put on display.

I was interested to learn that Professor Dale Trendall, the first "Master" of University House (a prestigious position then and now) collected the cup while traveling in Europe in the 1950s. Does its acquisition and export before the UNESCO laws were put into place make it any more 'legit,' or any less looted (especially in a time when modern, context conscious archaeology barely existed anywhere)? Even if the cup is now most valued for its symbolic links to ANU and University House, and not so much because it's an especially rare example of Attic pottery (but I'm not a Classicist, so don't quote me on that), does this excuse either the University or the National Museum from acknowledging its likely illicit origins (again, despite the lack of appropriate legislation at the time)? I don't think so.

Prof. Trendall is credited with creating the largest catalog of Apulian and Attic ceramics to date, with painstaking stylistic and morphological analyses conducted to attempt to distinguish the various styles in use from the 5th-4th c. BCE, as well as the 'signature' characteristics of individual painters. However, the work that underpinned this effort also put Trendall in contact with numerous local and international dealers, including some future big names, such as Geddes, and spawned a rush of looting in Southern Italy and Sicily, especially during the 1980s (see e.g. Gill, 2010). Although Trendall could not arguably have anticipated this, and even if this particular Attic cup did not recently 'surface,' the fact remains that the use of this particular piece of "other people's treasure" to bolster the image of "refinement" that both University House and the ANU wish to convey to the world, does not go unnoticed. Even though repatriation is impossible (and has never been requested), would not an image of the Parthenon (for example) suffice? Unfortunately, in my opinion the Classics Museum (and dept.) here has at best a mixed track-record of acknowledging provenance where known, collection method, and/or the pre-1970s origins of what's on display. Let's hope the National Museum is more upfront. I will report on the matter when I've seen the display in person.

In this instance, then, we can draw parallels between the use of artifacts from Classical antiquity in "demand" nations in both hemispheres; as signifiers of a person's or institution's aesthetic and cultural sophistication via the display of "pieces" made by the same people who 'founded' "Western Civilization." A spurious argument wherever it's used. This post will lead into future discussion of how "other people's treasure" is used as a marketing ploy in private antiquities sales down here, whether "Classical" or not, but (as per my interest) retaining a Southeast Asia focus.

Related to that, I'm glad to further report on a good example of an antiquities dealer in Britain doing the right thing by way of a looted Afghan statue! Good job! Thanks to The History Blog for covering it first. On the other hand, this article demonstrates that, in the complex world of knock-offs, duplicates, and genuine rare antiquities that is the Chinese antiquities trade, even local dealers can fool local buyers! How much does the desire for "other people's treasure" extend to collecting the antiquities of one's own national or ethnic past in this part of the world? Let the investigation continue!

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.