 |
|
|
“Indiana Jones
has no future”
Interview by Michel Bessières UNESCO Courier Journalist.
Even
though the plundering goes on, a collector who purchases a piece with dubious provenance
can no longer live with a clear conscience, says Lyndel Prott, director of UNESCO’s
Cultural Heritage Division |
Up for grabs: in Bogota, a public sale of looted pre-Colombian ceramics.
What's in vogue
|
Three
cases that shook the art world
1981.
Sotheby’s announced the “Sevso treasure” auction. The value of this Roman silverware
service, a prime example of late Roman style, is put at $10 million. But the Lebanese
export certificates were forgeries, and the treasure was seized in New York. The
investigation laid the blame on Sotheby’s.
Today, the origins of the Sevso treasure remain unknown. None of the countries claiming
the silver, including Lebanon, Hungary and Croatia, has been able to prove that it
may have been looted from their territory. The investigation was abandoned, and the
treasure was given back to its English owner.
1990. During the Biennale des Antiquaires show in Paris, French law enforcement
officers seized a painting by the 17th-century Dutch master Franz Hals from the stand
of New York’s Newhouse Galleries. The work came from the outstanding collection formed
in the 19th-century by an Alsatian Jew, Adolphe Schloss. In 1943, the Nazis, assisted
by the French police, seized the collection. Half was recovered in 1945. After that,
the Franz Hals work, one of the missing paintings, was sold at auction four times
(by both Sotheby’s and Christie’s) without raising the slightest question about its
provenance, even when it was accompanied by the comment, “Schloss collection, stolen
by the Nazis.” Accused of receiving stolen goods, the American gallery owner Adam
Williams must appear in a French court in May 2001: a first in the trafficking of
art works.
2000. In April 2000, the French press revealed that three Nok sculptures from
looted sites in Nigeria were on display at the Louvre’s new “first arts” museum.
Stéphane Martin, the museum’s director, justifies the 2.5-million-franc ($357,000)
purchase. “We knew perfectly well under what conditions they had left Nigeria,” he
says. “They’re still masterpieces. It’s better to show them to the public than to
leave them in a cellar.” Martin says that the Louvre and the Nigerian government
signed an agreement authorizing the purchase. But in November, Lord Colin Renfrew,
director of Cambridge University’s McDonald archaeological institute, accused France
of trafficking. Then, Nigeria’s ambassador to France, Edward Abiodun Aina, said,
“there is no agreement on the acquisition of these pieces,” clearing the way for
a restitution request.
|
World cost of looting
In May 1945, American GIs seized Old Master paintings from Hermann Goering’s loot. |
Owning stolen works
will soon be as objectionable as wearing fur or smoking in public,” the American
magazine Art & Auction wrote recently. Do you agree?
It’s true that the climate is changing. Moreover, it’s not just a simple matter
of saying the right thing. More and more, looting is seen as morally indefensible.
And yet, the plundering goes on.
Sometimes it’s even getting worse. This is the case in countries destabilized
by war, such as Afghanistan, of course–where pillaging takes place on a massive scale
in addition to destruction– but also in Cambodia and Iraq. Bas-reliefs from Sennacherib’s
palace in Nineveh have been turning up in western countries for several years.
What’s more, looters are acting on a large scale because of the technical means they’re
using. The tombaroli of southern Italy are ransacking archaeological sites with earth-moving
equipment. Treasure hunters equipped with metal detectors in Icklingham, Great Britain,
have unearthed Roman bronzes, which were sold to a private collector in the United
States. In Central America, they have electric generators and circular saws to steal
Mayan stele. In China, underwater sites off the Xisha islands are attacked with dynamite.
Devastated cemeteries in Jordan, mutilated idols in Nepal and wrecked Buddhist stupas
in Pakistan attest to the scope of demand in the northern countries.
How would you explain the growth of the art market in the northern countries?
It’s a combination of factors. In the United States, nearly a decade of steady
growth has given a new impetus to speculation on art. Furthermore, major museum exhibitions
have introduced long-overlooked cultures to the public: collectors are increasingly
numerous and their interest is diversifying. More generally, cultural consumption
occupies a preponderant place in the economy.
Would you like to see this market regulated?
UNESCO encourages the movement
of art works provided they have a determined provenance. What we’re fighting against
is the illicit trade, which requires calling certain traditions into question. If
you sell a piece of land or a car, the buyer asks you for a deed or registration
papers. That’s not the case with cultural property. It’s an exception.
Where does that come from?
An aura of prestige surrounds the art market, where people think it would be
unseemly to question collectors’ integrity. The confidentiality of transactions is
still the rule. For generations up to the 1990s, diplomats acquired and unlawfully
exported important works. That kind of behaviour supposedly reflected their interest
in culture. At the same time, INTERPOL has told us that operations against drug trafficking
have led to the seizure of several hundred paintings. In criminal circles, art is
a nameless, reliable means of payment which keeps its value over long periods.
Despite all that, you say mentalities are changing.
Today, this reality no longer goes unnoticed. The media report on looting and illicit
trade. And rightly so, because these deeds fill us with outrage. A collector who
purchases a piece with a questionable provenance can no longer live with a really
clear conscience. What’s more, a series of steps has been taken to curtail trafficking.
Individuals, institutions, national minorities and States are the driving forces
behind these initiatives. At this level, the main instrument in the fight against
looting is the 1970 Convention drafted by UNESCO (see box).
Is the Convention enough to cope with the problem?
It has gone a long way to help change mentalities. In the early 1970s, museum
curators would say, “Our job consists of putting together the most beautiful collections
possible. UNESCO should be helping
us instead of putting obstacles in our way.” Today, very few curators see things
that way. Most museums have adopted the code of conduct drafted by the International
Council of Museums (Icom), which cooperates closely with UNESCO. It requires the museum
not to acquire, or display pieces without good provenance.
Sometimes, museums also ask us for information on the provenance of a certain piece
they would like to acquire. This notably happened when we sent out specific warnings
with regard to pieces from Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Has public opinion also changed?
Yes. In the 1980s, the media challenged the “Indiana Jones” mentality, unscrupulous
hunting for treasures of all kinds, by explaining the problems looting creates for
the countries concerned. At the same time, non-governmental organizations have decided
to react. I’m especially thinking of the Berne Declaration, a Swiss NGO that manages
educational and economic projects in the southern countries. This group saw the extent
to which looting has become a cause of cultural alienation for people living in the
countries where it is ongoing. So it published first-hand accounts of the human consequences
of cultural heritage loss. In Switzerland, a major art-market country, a change in
attitude has been observed since these steps were taken. We’re still in this stage;
many countries are acknowledging that looting is not just somebody else’s problem.
Have opinion campaigns linked to the restitution of property looted by the Nazis
helped raise people’s awareness?
Yes, of course. In the 1980s, public opinion realized the scope of the looting.
It resulted from a huge injustice and could no longer go unnoticed. This has worked
in our favour: if art dealers and museums had adopted the principles set down by
the UNESCO Convention, they never would have reached that point, because the illegal
origin of many of the works concerned was known. From that point on, if the rules
of restitution must be applied to Europe, they are good for the rest of the world
as well.
Do art dealers agree to these principles?
Some professionals are changing. In Great Britain, art dealers have taken part
in an interministerial committee which recommended, after completing its work, that
the United Kingdom join the 1970 Convention. In Switzerland, the market’s reputation
has been marred by the retention of cultural–or other–property looted during the
Second World War. Faced with the rise of public awareness, dealers have seen where
their interests lie. And they don’t rule out that the country will join the UNESCO Convention.
Historically, the creation of collections responds to a desire for knowledge of past
civilizations. In your eyes, is this concern still legitimate?
Yes, but today we have greater respect for cultural diversity. Aside from items
produced by other cultures, we’re also interested in their approach, their perception
of the world. The United States, New Zealand and Australia, which share a colonial
past, have ended up understanding that they must involve ethnic minorities in the
management of their collections, by not exhibiting certain sacred pieces or by respecting
customs. Acquisitions linked to colonialism, based on an aesthetic appreciation,
but which ignore the damage, the uprooting caused to the other culture, are being
questioned.
What can the source countries do to curb trafficking?
Estimates put the share of looted pieces that are recovered at five to ten percent.
Not more. It’s obvious that those countries bear the main responsibility for protection.
Around the world, we bring countries together in regional workshops, first of all
to help them set up networks between law enforcement agents, customs officers and
museum curators. When they don’t work together, their efforts are less effective.
We also turn to consultants who help to improve national laws. And we help these
countries draw up inventories. Recently we held a workshop in Viet Nam. The city
of Hanoi alone boasts over 700 pagodas and temples housing thousands of valuable
pieces. Most of them have not been inventoried. A Chinese expert gave a talk that
got the undivided attention of listeners. Viet Nam is opening up to tourism, he explained.
You should adopt methods of control before it’s too late. China went through the
same experience and, in a few years, looting reached a scale that nobody could have
foretold.
But can looting be stopped? People living in impoverished rural areas have an immediate
economic interest in excavating.
Yes, they do. But once again, the trend can be reversed. In Peru, for example,
where tomb-raiding was rampant, Walter Alva’s initiative has changed things (see
p. 30). He sat down with the Indians and explained, “These are your ancestors.” We’re
doing all we can to help raise awareness. As soon as the local population is convinced
of the importance of cultural heritage, they become a site’s best curators.
http://www.unesco.org/culture
http://www.icom.org
http://www.artloss.com
|
The
arguments against market regulation
“The interchange
of cultural property among nations increases the knowledge of the civilization of
Man and enriches the cultural life of all peoples…” says the preamble of the 1970
Convention. Advocates of controlling the market are not opposed to the movement of
cultural property. They are against illicit trade, which involves pieces of undetermined
provenance. This crucial point made, here’s why their adversaries’ arguments do not
stand up upon close examination.
Only the market gives works value. Without a market, heritage is neglected.
Wrong. Many pieces without any commercial value are of primordial interest to archaeologists.
For example, simple shipboards analyzed via dendrochronology (the study of the growth
rings of trees), are used to date shipwrecks. Moreover, fluctuation in sales prices
often bear no relationship to a work’s aesthetic qualities or historic interest.
For example, a price surge sometimes leads to a spate of forgeries followed by total
depreciation. Today, the prices of Daum and Gallé Art Nouveau vases have fallen
to an all-time low.
The defenders of heritage encourage a nationalist reaction against a more universal
conception of culture.
Each country should be entitled to keep a representative ensemble of its heritage,
which is an integral part of its identity. This principle does not call into question
the free movement of works with a lawful provenance, nor does it violate the universalistic
conception of culture in any way. Furthermore, archaeological looting is a form of
theft, so it is legitimate for countries to combat it: those still rich with archaeological
sites, such as Turkey, Italy and Greece, or those that have lost almost everything,
such as the Samoa islands, Bangladesh and Mali.
Because of political instability or the corruption of elites, some countries are
incapable of preserving their heritage. The pieces are better off in the collections
of northern countries.
After a rash of thefts from several museums in Nigeria last year, Frank Willett,
a highly regarded Scottish expert on that country, urged collectors not to restitute
pieces that resurface on the market and accused the authorities of complicity in
the robberies. The argument is not lacking in merit, but it overlooks an essential
part of the problem. Trafficking, and the corruption that it implies, exists to meet
demand. There is a market of course, but what’s most important, is its tradition
of confidentiality, against which the advocates of control are campaigning. The solution:
museums and private collectors with unscrupulous acquisitions policies could invest
the same sums to fund official archaeological excavations. For example, the U.S.-based
Packard Foundation has earmarked $5 million for archaeological research in Zeugma,
Turkey, helping to prevent the looting that has plagued this great site of Roman
mosaics until now.
What entitles archaeologists to prevent poverty-stricken farmers from looting their
ancestors’ graves if that enables them to feed their families?
Looting does not feed the looters. Several years ago, an Indian farmer sold a freshly-exhumed
idol to a local middleman for 12 pounds sterling ($7.50). Three years later, the
same item was sold at a London auction for 300 000 pounds sterling ($188,000). On
the contrary, maintaining a site constitutes an economic resource for local populations.
|
|
|
The
1970 Convention
The
UNESCO Convention
on “the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer
of ownership of cultural property” culminated a long period of rising awareness.
As early as 1921, the Sèvres treaty was the first attempt to control the movement
of archaeological pieces in the Middle East.
When many countries around the world acceded to independence in the 1960s, the former
colonies wanted to obtain the restitution of their heritage, or at least to stop
the looting. Nigeria, China and Indonesia were very active. So was Greece, which
had undergone plundering for over a century.
Today, the 91 states that are parties to the Convention agree to oppose the import,
export and transfer of stolen cultural property and to the principle of their restitution.
They also agree to impose rules on museums and dealers to wipe out trafficking.
For a long time, the main art-market countries have expressed their misgivings about
the Convention. Among them, the United States was the first signatory, but not until
1983.
A second convention was planned to overcome their reluctance. The document was drafted
by Unidroit, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, an independent
intergovernmental organization whose purpose is to standardize the private law of
states in various fields. When this instrument was finalized in 1995, many countries
complained that it was even more restrictive, and began taking the necessary steps
to sign the 1970 Convention.
France ratified the Convention in 1997. Belgium and Switzerland, two of the leading
art-market nations, are among the 13 countries on the verge of joining. Great Britain
and Japan are reviewing the terms of their ratification.
The Convention is not retroactive, so it cannot be used to settle past disputes,
such as the disagreement between Greece and Great Britain over the Elgin marbles.
To resolve more recent conflicts, the 1970 Convention has set up an intergovernmental
committee for the return of cultural property to its country of origin, which acts
as a mediator. For example, the committee supervised the return of several hundred
items that had been kept in the United States to the museum in Corinth, Greece, and
is preparing the return to Bolivia of ancient textiles that had been illicitly exported
to Canada.
|
|
|
|
