CHAPTER 30
Looting and the Antiquities Trade

Gordon Lobay

1. Losing Context: An Introduction to Looting in Central Italy

This volume provides a wide perspective on Etruscan economic, political, and religious structures; it also highlights the importance of the ways in which archaeologists obtain the necessary information that informs our understanding of Etruscan society, art, and culture. While the beautiful and unique aesthetics of Etruscan artifacts provide an obvious source of information (see e.g. Chapter 24), in order to complete the picture of what we can learn using archaeological enquiry, the context of the findspot, or provenience (vertical and horizontal location) of the artifact in the ground must be carefully recorded (Renfrew and Bahn 1996: 46). This contextual information enables archaeologists to examine the relationship of artifacts to each other and to the various other remains contained within an archaeological site, such as human or animal bones, architectural structures, and a myriad of other items that make up the material culture of past civilizations. It is also used to examine a site’s relationship to others in the surrounding area and to the landscape itself. However, if an artifact is removed from its context without systematic recording, all available archaeological data are eliminated. A good analogy would be a modern crime scene where forensic specialists require the entire scene to be left undisturbed prior to investigation (Lobay 2009: 61).

The term provenience (archaeological findspot) must be differentiated from another frequently-used term, provenance, which describes the post-excavation history of an artifact (Coggins 1995). While provenance should not be diminished in importance, provenience is crucial to efforts to reconstruct the deepest understanding of an object and, moreover, the ancient history of a particular culture. A documented archaeological provenience also lends greater weight to art historical connoisseurship since it tethers an artifact to a particular place and time, important in analyses of stylistic forms in particular regions and time periods (Marlowe 2013). Many different terms are used to describe ancient objects; here I will define them as artifacts or antiquities from the pre-Roman period in central Italy roughly corresponding to the dates 900 to 300 BCE. In addition, while the Etruscans will be the main focus of this chapter, the discussion will consider the other pre-Roman Italic cultures of central Italy, such as the Villanovans and Faliscans. And while the objects themselves are collectively known as cultural property, which is itself broadly defined, I focus below primarily on “movables,” such as art works, tools, pottery, and sculpture (Prott and O’Keefe 1992: 307–308).

The Scale and History of Looting in Central Italy

Central Italy has a long history of illegitimate archaeological excavations (see further, Chapter 29). Interest and demand for Etruscan remains emerged in the Renaissance and gained momentum in Tuscany during the sixteenth-century reign of Cosimo de’Medici (Spivey 1997). This demand quickened pace during the so-called Etruscomania of the eighteenth century, when Etruscan archaeology and history was widely exported through the Grand Tours and highlighted by well-known intellectuals such as J.J. Winkelmann, Josiah Wedgwood, and Sir William Hamilton (Jenkins and Sloan 1996; Spivey 1997). The four volumes of George Dennis’s Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria provide a detailed account of his travels through central Italy in the mid-nineteenth century. They reveal important information on the state of preservation and condition of archaeological sites at the time. Dennis’s work also highlights the breadth and intensity of looting and, to the modern scholar, the long history of demand for Etruscan and pre-Roman antiquities.

Looting has impacted the entire region, where it is estimated that there are approximately 500,000 tombs in southern Etruria alone (Spivey 1997: 194). Most tombs contain, along with at least one human skeleton, many artifacts. When the various types of archaeological sites – from camps and huts to villas and temples and many more – are added together the possible number in existence is huge, and the corresponding number of artifacts available is truly vast. The looting of Etruscan archaeological sites increased after the Second World War, particularly during the 1950s (Thoden van Velzen 1996). Estimates suggest that in excess of 2000 tombs have been looted around Veii alone, with similar levels of destruction around Tarquinia and Cerveteri (Conforti 2001: 47). The geophysical surveys of Carlo Lerici in the 1960s provided further evidence of the rampant extent of looting in Tuscany and Lazio (Latium). In 1962 Lerici discovered clear and significant instances at Cerveteri and demonstrated that 400 of the 550 tombs investigated had been looted since the Second World War (Lerici 1962: 18–21). He also notes a link between seasonal employment and looting; for instance, during the winter when there is less work in agriculture or the tourism industry, looting increases (Lerici 1962: 18). Italy’s Carabinieri, recovered in excess of 300,000 looted antiquities between 1970 and 1996 (Slayman 2006: 44) and around 100,000 more between 1997 and 2001 (Pastore 2001: 159).

The Social Network of Looting

The process of looting and trading illicit antiquities can take many forms, but a common route is for a looter to sell an artifact to a local middleman who, in turn, sells it to other middlemen and dealers who have international links (Kersel 2006; Campbell 2013). The artifact continues moving in this manner (steadily increasing its selling price) until it enters a private collection or the international antiquities market where, if sold, it may then pass into private hands, possibly into a museum or to other dealers. Whether the artifact sells or not, it may re-emerge on the market at a later date.

The process starts with an illegal excavation; looters (known as tombaroli) find sites through familiarity with the landscape and the study of crop phenomena (Thoden van Velzen 1996; Ruiz 1999, 2001). The surface of the earth above many sites can be identified by a discoloration compared to the surrounding area (Graepler and Mazzei 1993; Thoden van Velzen 1996). As demonstrated by Thoden van Velzen (1996) in her investigation of the social network of looting in central Italy, and by Graepler and Mazzei (1993) in their study of looting in southern Italy, the physical act of looting proceeds in steps. Looters probe the earth over probable sites using long metal rods (spilloni), which are up to four meters in length and have a small handle welded to one end. This is an effective means of searching for subterranean voids or the blockages that sometimes indicate the presence of archaeological sites; the use of spilloni also speeds up prospecting (George 2005; Graepler and Mazzei 1993: 33). Once a new site is discovered, it is marked using rock piles or plastic sheeting. When night falls, looters return and “excavate” it using shovels and pick axes; only the most valuable artifacts are removed (Graepler and Mazzei 1993: 34–38).

Thoden van Velzen (1996) observed that looters in central Italy had unintentionally exploited a noticeable gap in scholarly research. While archaeologists principally excavated the larger rock-cut or mound-style Etruscan tombs (see further, Chapter 11), the less grand but often artifact-rich Hellenistic fossa tombs remained relatively unstudied. Widely known to the tombaroli, fossa tombs provide a significant resource for plunder. This example, moreover, clearly indicates one of the ways in which looting directly impacts our understanding of the archaeology of central Italy: it disproportionately displaces contexts and artifacts from specific tomb groups. Thoden van Velzen (1996) also discusses two biographical volumes by looters, one by Omero Bordo (Cecchelin 1987) and another by Luigi Perticarari (Perticarari and Giuntani 1986). Both accounts describe social mores amongst central Italian looters, as well as the ways that they locate and “excavate” sites, and their broader networks with middlemen and dealers.

The act of removing antiquities from Italy takes place in similarly numerous ways. Means of removal, or smuggling, include transporting objects in commercial vehicles, breaking ceramics into smaller pieces for carriage by hand and many other processes designed to conceal antiquities as they cross the border (Graepler and Mazzei 1993: 50; Pastore 2001: 156–57; Felch and Frammolino 2011). Once an artifact leaves Italy, tracing it becomes problematic. Once it has been laundered through many different hands and over many borders, proving which in country an artifact originated and when it left that country, becomes exceedingly difficult (Gerstenblith 2007). A first stop for many artifacts on their way to key markets is a transit nation (Kersel 2006), with the best-known example being Switzerland, which formerly had relatively relaxed import and export controls (Weber 2006).

The importance of Switzerland as a transit nation for central Italian antiquities was made disturbingly clear by the large-scale operation and network of the notorious Giacomo Medici, a middleman and dealer who had what could be described as a storeroom in the Geneva Freeport that even functioned as a sale room (Watson 1997; Watson and Todeschini 2006). Medici was a key figure in the looting of central Italy from the 1970s to the early 1990s. He would buy antiquities directly from looters for relatively low prices and then sell them to wealthy collectors. He was even known to have consigned antiquities to auctions, only to have acquaintances purchase them back on his behalf in order to inflate prices (Watson and Todeschini 2006; Felch and Frammolino 2011). Perhaps his most famous transaction was his middleman role in purchasing the famed Euphronios krater (Figure 30.1) from looters and selling it to Robert Hecht, a well-known dealer who, in turn, sold it to the Metropolitan Museum in 1972 for what was, at the time, an incredible price: $1 million (Watson 1997; Waxman 2008). Medici has also been linked to unprovenanced artifacts in many major museums, including the Getty Museum, one of whose curators, Marion True, was tried in an Italian court as a collaborator (Watson and Todeschini 2006).

Image described by caption.

Figure 30.1 Attic red-figure calyx krater by Euphronios with Hypnos and Thanatos carrying the body of Sarpedon off the battlefield, 520–510 BCE. From Caere. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia.

Photo: © 2015. Photo Scala, Florence – courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali.

Medici was first revealed to the Italian authorities through the investigation of a network of looters. After the accidental death of Pasquale Camarra (a leading member of his network), a search of his apartment in Rome turned up an organigram outlining the key members of the group (Watson and Todeschini 2006). In 2005, after a protracted investigation, Medici was sentenced to 10 years in prison (later reduced to eight years) and ordered to pay €10 million to the Italian State in compensation (Silver 2009; Brodie 2015).

2. The Antiquities Market

The antiquities market can be defined in several ways: for instance, open trade occurs in auction houses, galleries, and dealers’ shops. These “open” venues, however, are exclusive environments and – while the public may attend pre-auction artifact viewings, observe the auction sales itself, or visit dealers’ shops – most people do not due to this perceived exclusivity. Nevertheless, there is much to be learned by observing auction sales and gaining an understanding of the market. The relative openness of the public market stands in contrast to the opaque nature of the invisible market, which is closed to observation or scrutiny except in exceptional circumstances – for instance, when access is granted by insiders (Thoden van Velzen 1996; Watson 1997) or as the result of police investigations (Watson and Todeschini 2006). The key point is that there is an element of access to the artifacts in the so-called open trade, with auction houses being the best example, since they publish consigned items in their catalogues and on their websites. Other open venues also allow access to data through their public-facing print and online offerings, although it is often inconsistent. Regardless, these materials allow researchers to capture useful data that can provide an important perspective on market activity.

The key markets for Etruscan antiquities are historically located in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Switzerland (both a transit and a market nation). Three auction houses – Bonhams, Christie’s, and Sotheby’s – are the highest-profile institutions; all were established in the eighteenth century and have extensive experience trading classical antiquities (Nørskov 2002: 253). Sotheby’s, for instance, held its first dedicated antiquities auction in 1835 (Herrmann 1980: 229). Bonhams began holding regular antiquities auctions much later, in the early 1990s, but they have steadily consigned larger volumes of central Italian antiquities to auction (Lobay 2007). Bonhams’ antiquities’ sales increased especially after 1997, when Sotheby’s discontinued antiquities auctions in London, partially due to reporting by Peter Watson, who demonstrated that the institution was aware of antiquities appearing in their sales which were illegally exported from their countries of origin (Watson 1997; Nørskov 2002: 253). In contrast to these auction houses are the dealers’ shops and galleries which, as some have suggested, represent a gauge of the popular tastes for specific antiquities, whereas auctions reflect the total supply of objects available (Nørskov 2002). A sizeable market on the internet has also developed in recent years, but due to its fluid nature, methods for capturing useful data remain unreliable (Lidington 2002).

Monitoring Market Activity

If the market drives the incentive to loot (Elia 1993; Renfrew 1993), then a better understanding of the relative demand for specific artifact types can help develop better protection strategies. Market data can be used in many applied ways, such as in assessing the impact of interventions (legislation and international agreements). Basic empirical research builds corpora of artifacts passing through the market, which allow for statistical studies of trends and provide a tool for investigating specific artifacts and artifact classes (Lobay 2007; 2009). Several corpus-based studies have been conducted that have built empirical datasets of classical antiquities appearing on the art market. Elia (2001), for instance, generated a world corpus of Apulian vases from the market, legitimate excavations, and art historical sources. Gill and Chippindale (1993) and Chippindale and Gill (2000) used quantitative analysis and focused on museum exhibitions and the consequences of looting. They demonstrated that 85 percent of antiquities from seven exhibitions were without provenance, and indicated the same percentage for objects on the auction market. Nørskov (2002) gathered a large dataset of Greek vases on the market and analyzed museum acquisitions.

Lobay (2007) took a regional-based approach specifically focusing on central Italy and analyzed both the scale of the market (see Figure 30.2) and trends in provenance descriptions through a content-analysis of 481 auction sales at Bonhams, Christie’s and Sotheby’s between 1970 and 2005. A large empirical dataset was gathered from a total of approximately 150,000 auction lots, resulting in the identification of around 7,000 antiquities from pre-Roman central Italy.

Graph of the volume of pre-Roman artifacts from central Italy made from metals, ceramics, terracotta, and others and consigned to auction in 1970–2005. Curves depict over 100 pieces, with 1 category reaching 200.

Figure 30.2 Volume of pre-Roman artifacts from central Italy consigned to auction at Bonhams, Christie’s, and Sotheby’s, 1970–2005.

Source: Lobay 2007: 134.

Figure 30.3 shows that artifacts without a provenance have a high frequency, while those published in auction catalogues that included names of people increased at various times during the 35 year time period (e.g., during the mid-1970s, mid-1980s, and towards the end of the time period in 2002 and 2004). This study concluded that 72 percent of consigned antiquities were without a stated provenance, 23 percent included the name of a person, 3.4 percent noted the object had appeared in a previous sale, and 1.6 percent had only a vague provenance (Lobay 2007: 270).

Image described by caption and surrounding text.

Figure 30.3 Published provenance of pre-Roman artifacts from central Italy consigned to auction at Bonhams, Christie’s, and Sotheby’s, 1970–2005.

Source: Lobay 2007: 135.

In order to put these data into the wider market context, it must be remembered that “only a small percentage of objects appear at public auctions … Many more change hands privately and can be spotted only by seeking out dealers and collectors” (von Bothmer 1975: 114). The analysis by Nørskov (2002: 296) substantiates this point: “when comparing the acquisitions of selected museums with the art market supply, it is most striking that while museums acquired less and less, the supply of vases on the market grew steadily until the late 1980s.” She goes on to say that, “few of the vases acquired by museums were actually purchased through the auction and gallery catalogues used in the analysis of the market.”

Illicit antiquities research is also plagued by circular problems: one of these follows the economic paradigm that if demand remains unchanged or increases, and supply decreases, a shortage occurs, leading to increased prices (Besanko and Braeutigam 2005: 33). In relation to the antiquities trade, higher prices increase the incentive to loot antiquities. This paradox of supply suggests that any regulation that has a negative impact on the supply of antiquities available to the market would increase prices and thereby the incentive to loot (Lobay 2009: 74). Secondly, and specifically related to Etruscan antiquities, is the paradox of aesthetics: the distinctive aesthetics of many artifacts is a great strength in that they can be easily identified out of context on the art market. This distinctiveness also represents a profound weakness since it is a key reason why they are in demand in the first place.

A good representation of this distinctiveness can be seen in a seventh-century BCE amphora (Figure 30.4) that belongs to a type found in localized areas north of Rome, such as at Crustumerium (di Gennaro 2009). Distinctive artifacts types from central Italy are abundant and include bucchero pottery, bronze weapons, nenfro statuary, terracotta figurines, and many impasto vases. Recording the appearances of these distinguishable artifacts on the market builds datasets that can be used to evaluate and develop cultural property legislation, international agreements and other regulations, as well as to track known illicit antiquities suspected to have reached the market.

Image described by caption.

Figure 30.4 Impasto amphora with molded handles, seventh century BCE, sold in 2003 (Lot 185 Bonhams).

Photo: By permission of Bonhams.

The model developed by Lobay (2007) provides a template for monitoring the market; originally applied to auctions, it is applicable to any market from which data can be collected. Its key features are:

  • Volume: the number of distinguishable artifacts on the market within a specified period of time;
  • Artifact description: detailed descriptions of artifacts (including an image if possible);
  • Prices: stated price, estimated price (if at auction) and if available, the realized price (the amount actually paid for the artifact);
  • Provenance: details from market sources can by classified into a further four categories:
    • Name: names of people, such as former owners or others associated with the artifact;
    • No Provenance: no supporting details whatsoever or unusable information, such as “acquired by the present owner as a 21st birthday present in 1960” (Bonhams, Antiquities, 21 April 2005, Sale ID 11597, lot 438);
    • Previous Sale: information about past sales in which the artifact appeared, such as in dealers’ shops or auctions;
    • Vague: overly broad geographical region (e.g., Italy), dates of acquisition (without the name of an owner), or other details that cannot be corroborated.

Gathering data in a systematic manner such as this allows researchers to monitor market activity of specific artifacts from specific regions (see Figures 30.2 and 30.3), while also developing an inventory of artifacts that have appeared on the market. This toolkit of market data is essential in developing testable hypotheses that can be used to evaluate legislation and international agreements aimed at protecting antiquities.

3. National and International Approaches to Protecting Central Italian Antiquities

Countries protect cultural property through strategies that address both the demand for antiquities and the sources of antiquities (O’Keefe 1997: 12). This layered approach to regulation “is necessary in order to preserve cultural property and to support its proper international circulation” (Merryman 2005: 12). In Italy, strategies include “on the ground” policing, national legislation, directives from the European Union (EU), adherence to international conventions, bilateral agreements with other countries, and, increasingly, social persuasion.

Italian-based Protection Strategies

The archaeological, artistic, and archival patrimony of Italy is protected and managed by a system of soprintendenze who maintain monuments, conduct and monitor archaeological excavations, and oversee fieldwork undertaken within their respective jurisdictions by both Italian and foreign institutions (di Gennaro 2009). Despite the many legal instruments available, a few of which will be discussed below, the framework in Italy is, in many ways, insufficient to deal with the scale of looting and illegal trading on a legislative, judicial, and even investigative level (Pastore 2001: 160). In 1969, Italy created a police unit, the Comando Carabinieri Tutela Patrimonio Artistico, which was charged with protecting cultural property (Pastore 2001: 158–159). Under the command of General Roberto Conforti during the 1990s, it was steadily strengthened, and by 2006, the Unit (popularly referred to as the “Art Squad”) was no longer just a Rome-based staff of 60 but a connected network staffed by 250 individuals (Pastore 2001: 158; Watson and Todeschini 2006).

Italy’s principal legislative source of cultural property protection is based on Law 1089 (1939), which declares all archaeological items as property of the State (Pastore 2001: 158). New discoveries must be declared to the State with penalties of up to three years imprisonment for finders that fail to do so. Building on Law 1089, Decree 288 (July 5, 1972) addresses the illegal trade in art and antiquities and provides rules on the exportation of objects of historical and archaeological interest (Pastore 2001: 158). Law 88 (March 30, 1998) focuses on the circulation of cultural goods and the restitution of cultural property that has illegally left the territory of an EU member state (Frigo 2001: 323). Italy has also passed several European Community (EC) Directives relating to the protection and export of cultural properties, such as EC Regulation 3911/92, Directive 93/7/EEC, and the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (di Gennaro 2009: 121; Frigo 2001: 317). Directive 93/7/EEC obliges EU member states to return illicit objects located within its jurisdiction to another member state.

International Conventions

After the Second World War, many nations recognized the need for a global approach to the protection of cultural and natural heritage as rapid post-war development endangered the very resources that were proving so valuable for economic expansion (Magness-Gardiner 2004: 27). Individual nations were solely responsible for their cultural property, which meant constructing unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral agreements to protect antiquities and cultural objects. Papa Sokal (2006) explains that, during the post-war period, it was also deemed necessary to address the problem of illegally traded art and archaeology. This issue was then raised at the 1960 UNESCO General Conference, and a resolution was passed that called for a report on illicit imports, exports, and sales of cultural property.

In 1969, UNESCO proposed a preliminary draft of a convention, which was passed to member states for comment and, a year later, the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (the 1970 Convention) was established. The 1970 Convention comprises 26 articles that form a set of guidelines which can be enacted by signatory nations to help reduce looting, theft, and illegal exports of cultural property (Prott 1998: 205; Merryman 2005). However, it is not self-executing, meaning that signatory nations may be obliged to create or adjust legislation to allow the 1970 Convention to take effect. The 1970 Convention provides a legislative framework that encourages clear channels between signatory nations to recover unlawfully-removed cultural property and prevent the import of cultural objects acquired illicitly (Palmer 2000: 20–21). At the time of writing, it has been adopted by 124 countries, making it valuable as a means of recovering unlawfully-removed cultural property.

In 1984, UNESCO requested that UNIDROIT, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, develop provisions that would enhance the effectiveness of the 1970 Convention (McManamon and Morton 2000: 251). The resulting 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects aimed to develop uniformity in international law between nations, with the intention of closing existing loopholes (Siehr 1992). It was designed to favor the dispossessed owner of an object over the good-faith purchaser, and encourage purchasers to exercise a higher degree of due diligence in determining a legitimate provenance (Prott 1998: 205). Article 3(1), for example, states that “the possessor of a cultural object which has been stolen shall return it” (Siehr 1993: 96), but it does not distinguish definition of theft or return to whom. This relative lack of clarity was a key reason why only 24 nations acceded to the Convention, thus diminishing its effectiveness as a global mandate.

US-Italy Bilateral Agreement

The United States did not have a comprehensive policy regarding the international movement of cultural property until 1983 when the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) was enacted, which allowed the US to implement Articles 7b and 9 of the 1970 Convention (Herscher 1989: 117; Guthrie-Hingston 1989: 131). These articles authorize governments to enforce import restrictions on cultural property stolen from inventoried collections in states party to the 1970 Convention (Magness-Gardiner 2004: 33; Papa Sokal 2006: 70–71). Article 7b allows the US government to take steps to recover and return property in response to a request from member states (Papa Sokal 2006: 70). Article 9, as implemented by the US, allows the government to create and enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements involving import controls (Magness-Gardiner 2004: 33; Papa Sokal 2006: 72). Bilateral agreements can be entered into when nations request a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The MoU must be on the basis that cultural objects of the requesting nation are at risk due to looting, and that restricting those objects from entering the American antiquities market would reduce the incentive to loot (Kouroupas 1995). Bilateral agreements last for five years and are renewable indefinitely, as long as the conditions of the CPIA continue to be met as they relate to the designated cultural property (Chechi 2009: 155). The agreement with Italy came into effect on January 19, 2001 and has been renewed in 2006 and 2011; a third renewal process is underway. It restricts imports to America of specific artifact types, which are outlined in a Federal Register and which include stone, metal, ceramic, glass, and wall paintings ranging from the ninth century BCE to the fourth century CE.

Using a dataset of pre-Roman antiquities from central Italy, I have shown elsewhere that, in relation to the artifacts studied, this bilateral agreement has not achieved the effect of reducing the incentive to loot sites: rather, the volume of antiquities reaching the auction market increased by 39 percent over the time period covered (Lobay 2009: 71). However, data suggest the agreement has contributed to encouraging auction houses to pay more attention to provenance, as evidenced by a 20 percent increase in consigned antiquities which include the name of a specific individual appearing in auction catalogues during the study period, (Lobay 2009: 72). Previous sale details are increasingly used as a provenance for auction lots, which satisfies the agreement, since it is not retrospective and therefore does not apply to artifacts that have been located in the United States prior to its implementation. Unfortunately, even if verifiable, previous sale data only reveal the location of an artifact prior to 2001, not its legitimacy (Lobay 2009: 74).

International Measures

Integration of international approaches is necessary to combat the looting and illegal trading of antiquities more effectively. Recently, major market nations have begun to adjust their strategies, and many have ratified or accepted the 1970 Convention. Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UK), two nations with strong markets for Etruscan artifacts, have enacted new legislation (Gerstenblith 2006: 76).

In 2005, Switzerland passed the Swiss Federal Act on the International Transfer of Cultural Property, or Cultural Property Transfer Act (CPTA) (Weber 2006: 100). This Act implements the 1970 Convention in a manner similar to the American model, with a focus on import restrictions, and permits the Swiss Federal Council to enter into agreements with other states party to the 1970 Convention (Gerstenblith 2006: 77). The provisions on due diligence, moreover, were clarified and strengthened to oblige importers of cultural property to ensure it was not stolen, lost against the will of its owner, illegally excavated, or illicitly imported (CPTA, Article 16, para 1; Gerstenblith 2006: 77; Weber 2006: 106).

The UK’s art market is second in size only to America’s, but the country’s demand for central Italian antiquities exceeded America’s (by volume of artifacts consigned at auction) in most years between 1970 and 2005 (Lobay 2007). The Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) strengthened the UK’s criminal law by making it an offence to deal dishonestly in “tainted” cultural objects (Gerstenblith 2006: 76; Mackenzie 2011). It defined illicit antiquities as “tainted” when “excavated, or removed from a monument or other building or structure of historical, architectural or archaeological interest, and such excavation or removal constitutes an offence” (the 2003 Act, Sec 2; Mackenzie and Green 2008). The 2003 Act also closed a loophole in the Theft Act of 1968, which did not include specific provisions for “handling” or importing stolen property outside the UK for one’s own benefit (Mackenzie and Green 2008). While the 2003 Act is a positive step, its utility is diminished because in order to commit an offence, it must be proved that an individual dealt with tainted artifacts “knowing or believing them to be tainted” (the 2003 Act, Sec 2; Mackenzie and Green 2008). In a market where provenance information is rare, any suspicions about the origins of an artifact are relatively easy to dismiss as unsubstantiated (Mackenzie and Green 2008). The 2003 Act has been evaluated by Mackenzie and Green (2009a), who found that it is unlikely to impact the trade in the UK or to reduce the incentive to loot antiquities.

Social Persuasion

Since the early 1990s, a movement has developed to document the consequences of looting and illegal trading on our understanding of ancient civilizations. This has led to shifts in attitudes towards looting, collecting and the antiquities trade. As noted in Alder (2001: 9), within the context of archaeological looting, “persuasion” can be used as a tactic in regulation. As the arsenal of legal instruments and international agreements grows to meet the continually evolving problem of looting, social persuasion aimed at raising awareness of the consequences of looting is also having an influence.

The work of Clemency Coggins (1969) was seminal in highlighting the impact of looting in the 1960s, but relatively few voices persisted from the archaeological community through the 1970s and 1980s. It was only in the 1990s that Gill and Chippindale (1993) documented evidence linking looted cultural property with museums. Then, following the debate between Elia (1993; 2001) and Renfrew (1993; 2000) that coined the phrase, “collectors are the real looters,” the urgent need to dis-incentivize the practice came to the fore. In fact, the latter debate was a key factor in igniting the archaeological community’s concerted charge against the antiquities trade. Since the mid-1990s, many academic publications, government reports, and more recently, popular media and social networks (see Guide to Further Reading), have discussed and analyzed the debate between archaeologists and the trade. The current debates are significant and, it could be argued, are having a transformative effect on the antiquities market and the incentive to loot through their contextualization of the consequences of these practices. The presentation of these debates in the popular media is raising awareness of the issues amongst the general public and by moving the debate to public venues the practices of collectors are being challenged more widely and, it could be argued, the incentive to collect is diminishing, much in the way that the anti-fur, blood diamonds, and environmental movements have affected similar cultural changes (Campbell 2013: 137).

Recent Successes

The combination of major market nations accepting or ratifying the 1970 Convention, new legislation and international agreements, and various degrees of social persuasion have encouraged many source nations to move for the repatriation of looted antiquities from foreign museums. A significant case was Italy’s agreement with the J. Paul Getty Museum for the return of various artifacts in 1996, 1999, 2005 and 2007 (La Follette 2013). The 2005 trial of former Getty curator, Marion True, and her association with the middleman-dealer, Giacomo Medici, unlocked key details that prompted several other museums (such as the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the Cleveland Museum of Art, and Princeton University’s Art Museum) to return dubiously acquired artifacts to Italy. Several dealers and collectors, including Jerome Eisenberg, Shelby White, and the brothers Hicham and Ali Aboutaam, have followed suit (Felch and Frammolino 2011: 307).

Another important case involved the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, from which Italy won restitution of around 20 antiquities, including the Euphronios Krater (see Figure 30.1), which is now permanently housed in the Villa Giulia Museum in Rome. These restitution cases bring to light many details about the trade and those involved in looting, trafficking and laundering antiquities. Much has been written about them in both the popular press and academic circles, with comprehensive accounts in Watson (1997), Watson and Todeschini (2006), Waxman (2008), Felch and Frammolino (2011), and La Follette (2013).

Wider Debates

As stewards of heritage on behalf of the public, archaeologists, governments, art historians, and criminologists have a direct interest in antiquities and in the suppression of looting. Museums are also a key group. James Cuno, formerly the President and Director of the Art Institute of Chicago and now President and CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust, has suggested a return to the partage system, which was relatively common in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In partage, artifacts excavated legitimately are shared between the source nation and a foreign museum that led the excavation. The nation would hold ownership of the items it deems scientifically important and transfer ownership of a representative group of the remaining artifacts to the foreign institution, which could then remove them from the country (Cuno 2008: 55). Cuno also asserts, in relation to Italy, that the current system is based on nationalist and retentionist strategies that are inconsistent with the idea of a common cultural heritage (2008: 127–128).

Italy already has export-permitting provisions that allow artifacts to leave the country (di Gennaro 2009). As a means of reducing the market for antiquities and the incentive to loot, partage would not – considering the size of the market – remove enough artifacts from circulation or stop them from being highly valued. Without evidence to satisfy the above factors, withdrawing Italy’s cultural property ownership rights is unreasonable and renders the argument more academic than practical.

4. Conclusion

There are signs that the rate of looting in Italy is slowing (Gill 2010), though reports continue to emerge of large-scale seizures, including multiple artifacts from different time periods and whole tombs, such as “a single tomb complex identified as belonging to the Etruscan Cacni family” (Povoledo 2013). Nevertheless, a reduced rate of looting is remarkable considering the precarious economic climate since the 2008 financial crisis; that is, one would expect looting to increase when unemployment rates are high, and tourism and seasonal work are down. In the years preceding 2008, several significant legal and international agreements were established in major market nations that are building international cooperation in addressing the problem, while social persuasion continues to develop. The discovery of a fully intact Etruscan rock-cut tomb at Tarquinia dubbed in the media as the “Warrior Princess” (Ghose 2013; Lorenzi 2013) reminds us of the importance of the archaeological remains that require protection. While looting remains an ongoing problem, plagued by circular issues such as the paradoxes of supply and aesthetics, it is possible to cut through this confused situation by systematic monitoring of market activity. Despite the limitations to this approach, the distinctive nature of Etruscan archaeology allows researchers to distinguish artifacts out of context on the market and the resulting data are invaluable in building knowledge of the market. These analyses link artifacts currently on the market to specific regions, allow researchers to evaluate legislation and other protective measures, and inform the development of more effective national and international protection strategies. It is debatable whether the complete suppression of the antiquities market will ever be possible. Nevertheless, just as archaeologists record as much contextual information as possible from a site in the landscape, the same tactic can be taken with the antiquities market so that it can be monitored, quantified and, when necessary, investigated through evidence-based approaches.

REFERENCES

  1. Alder, C. 2001. “The Illicit Traffic in Asian Antiquities.” Journal of the Australian Registrars Committee 41: 9–14, 35–39.
  2. Bell, S. and H. Nagy, eds. 2009. New Perspectives on Etruria and Early Rome. Madison, WI.
  3. Besanko, D. and R. Braeutigam. 2005. Microeconomics: An Integrated Approach. New York.
  4. Bonhams. 2005. Antiquities. Knightsbridge, April 21, 2005, Sale ID 11597. London.
  5. Brodie, N. 2015. “Giacomo Medici.” Trafficking Culture. http://traffickingculture.org/encyclopedia/case-studies/giacomo-medici/. Accessed August 5, 2015.
  6. Brodie, N. et al., eds. 2006. Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Trade in Antiquities. Gainesville, FL.
  7. Brodie, N. J., J. Doole and C. Renfrew, eds. 2001. Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The Destruction of the World’s Archaeological Heritage. Cambridge.
  8. Campbell, P. 2013. “The illicit Antiquities Trade as a Transnational Criminal Network: Characterizing and Anticipating Trafficking of Cultural Heritage.” International Journal of Cultural Property 20: 113–153.
  9. Cecchelin, R. 1987. Omero: La Mia Vita con gli Etruschi. Rome.
  10. Chechi, A. 2009. “Facilitating the Restitution of Cultural Objects Through Cooperation: The Case of the 2001 US-Italy Agreement and its Relevance for Mediterranean Countries.” In A. Vrdoljak and F. Francioni, eds., 149–162.
  11. Chippindale, C. and D. Gill. 2000. “Material Consequences of Contemporary Classical Collecting.” American Journal of Archaeology 104: 463–511.
  12. Coggins, C. 1969. “Illicit traffic of Pre-Columbian Antiquities.” Art Journal 29: 94–98.
  13. Coggins, C. 1995. “A Licit International Traffic in Ancient Art: Let There be Light!” International Journal of Cultural Property 4: 61–80.
  14. Conforti, R. 2001. “Patrimonio archeologico e qualità dell’azione di contrasto in aree a rischio.” La Gestione del Patrimonio Culturale, Qualità e Beni Culturali e Ambientali, Atti del VI Colloquio Internazionale. Lecture, Barletta: December 4–8, 2001.
  15. Cuno, J. 2008. Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over our Ancient Heritage. Princeton, NJ.
  16. Dennis, G. 1883. The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria. London.
  17. Di Gennaro, F. 2009. “From Crustumerium: Preventing Looting by Exchanging Loans for Preservation of Cultural Patrimony.” In S. Bell and H. Nagy, eds., 119–133.
  18. Elia, R. 1993. “Collectors are the Real Looters.” Archaeology 46: 16–17.
  19. Elia, R. 2001. “Analysis of the Looting, Selling, and Collecting of Apulian Red-figure Vases: a Quantitative Approach.” In N. J. Brodie, J. Doole and C. Renfrew, eds., 145–153.
  20. Felch, J. and R. Frammolino. 2011. Chasing Aphrodite: the Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World’s Richest Museum. Boston.
  21. Frigo, M. 2001. “The International Transfer of Works of Art in the New Italian Consolidated Statute on Cultural Property.” International Journal of Cultural Property 10: 315–325.
  22. George, R. 2005. “The Great Smash and Grab.” The Independent on Sunday. May 1, 2005: 27–30.
  23. Gerstenblith, P. 2006. “Recent United States Legal Developments in the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage.” In N. Brodie et al., eds., 134–187.
  24. Gerstenblith, P. 2007. “Controlling the International Market in Antiquities: Reducing the Harm, Preserving the Past.” Chicago Journal of International Law 8: 167–195.
  25. Ghose, T. 2013. “Oops! That Etruscan Warrior Prince was actually a Warrior Princess.” http://www.nbcnews.com/science/oops-etruscan-warrior-prince-was-actually-princess-8C11422309. Accessed August 5, 2015.
  26. Gill, D. 2010. “Italy: Looting decreased dramatically.” http://lootingmatters.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/italy-looting-decreased-dramatically.html. Accessed August 5, 2015.
  27. Gill, D. and C. Chippindale. 1993. “Material and Intellectual Consequences of Esteem for Cycladic Figures.” American Journal of Archaeology 97: 601–659.
  28. Graepler, D. and M. Mazzei. 1993. Fundort Unbekannt: Raubgrabungen zerstören das Archaölogische Erbe. Munich.
  29. Guthrie-Hingston, A. 1989. “U.S. Implementation of the UNESCO Cultural Property Convention.” In P. Mauch-Messenger, ed., 129–148.
  30. Herrmann, F. 1980. Sotheby’s: Portrait of an Auction House. London.
  31. Herscher, E. 1989. “International Control Efforts: Are There any Good Solutions?” In P. Mauch-Messenger, ed., 117–128.
  32. Hoving, T., ed. 1975. The Chase, The Capture: Collecting at the Metropolitan. New York.
  33. Jenkins, I. and K. Sloan, eds. 1996. Vases & Volcanoes: Sir William Hamilton and His Collection. London.
  34. Kersel, M. 2006. “From the Ground to the Buyer a Market Analysis of the Trade in Illegal Antiquities.” In N. Brodie et al., eds., 188–205.
  35. Kouroupas, M. 1995. “United States Efforts to Protect Cultural Property: Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention.” In K. Walker-Tubb, ed., 83–93.
  36. La Follette, L. 2013. “The Trial of Marion True and Changing Policies for Classical Antiquities in American Museums.” In L. La Follette, ed., 38–71.
  37. La Follette, L., ed. 2013. Negotiating Culture: Heritage, Ownership and Intellectual Property. Amherst, MA.
  38. Lerici, C. M. 1962. Italia Sepolta. Milan.
  39. Lidington, H. 2002. “The Role of the Internet in Removing the ‘Shackles of the Saleroom’.” Public Archaeology 2: 67–84.
  40. Lobay, G. 2007. “Objects and Objectivity: An Archaeology of Auctions. Central Italian Antiquities at Bonhams, Christie’s and Sotheby’s 1970–2005.” Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, Homerton College.
  41. Lobay, G. 2009. “Border Controls in Market Countries as Disincentives to Antiquities Looting at Source? The US–Italy Bilateral Agreement 2001.” In S. Mackenzie and P. Green, eds., 59–82.
  42. Lorenzi, R. 2013. “Skeleton of Ancient Prince Reveals Etruscan Life.” http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/estruscan-prince-skeleton-rome-130920.htm. Accessed August 5, 2015.
  43. Mackenzie, S. and P. Green. 2008. “Performative Regulation: A Case Study in how Powerful People avoid Criminal Labels.” British Journal of Criminology 48: 138–153.
  44. Mackenzie, S. and P. Green. 2009. “Criminalising the Market in Illicit Antiquities: An Evaluation of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 in England and Wales.” In S. Mackenzie and P. Green, eds., 145–170.
  45. Mackenzie, S. and P. Green, eds. 2009. Criminology and Archaeology: Studies in Looted Antiquities. Oxford.
  46. Mackenzie, S. 2011. “The Market as Criminal and Criminals in the Market: Reducing Opportunities for Organised Crime in the International Antiquities Market.” In S. Manacorda and D. Chappell, eds., 69–85.
  47. Magness-Gardiner, B. 2004. “International Conventions and Cultural Heritage Protection.” In Y. Rowan and U. Baram, eds., 27–39.
  48. Manacorda, S. and D. Chappell, eds. 2011. Crime in the Art and Antiquities World: Illegal Trafficking in Cultural Property. New York.
  49. Mauch-Messenger, P., ed. 1989. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property: Whose Culture? Whose Property? Albuquerque, NM.
  50. Marlowe, E. 2013. Shaky Ground: Context, Connoisseurship and the History of Roman Art. London.
  51. McManamon, F. and A. Hatton, eds. 2000. Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society. London.
  52. McManamon, F. and S. Morton. 2000. “Reducing the Illegal Trafficking in Antiquities.” In F. McManamon and A. Hatton, eds., 247–275.
  53. Merryman, J. H. 2005. “Cultural Property Internationalism.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12: 11–39.
  54. Nørskov, V. 2002. Greek Vases in New Contexts: The Collecting and Trading of Greek Vases–An Aspect of the Modern Reception of Antiquity. Aarhus.
  55. O’Keefe, P. 1997. Trade in Antiquities: Reducing Destruction and Theft. Dorchester.
  56. Palmer, N., ed. 1998. The Recovery of Stolen Art: A Collection of Essays. London.
  57. Palmer, N. 2000. Ministerial Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade. London.
  58. Papa Sokal, M. 2006. “The US Response to the Protection of World Cultural Heritage.” N. Brodie et al., eds., 69–133.
  59. Pastore, G. 2001. “The Looting of Archaeological Sites in Italy.” In N. Brodie, J. Doole and C. Renfrew, eds., 155–160.
  60. Perticarari, L. and A. M. Giuntani. 1986. I Segreti di un Tombarolo. Milan.
  61. Povoledo, E. 2013. “Italian Police Recover Trove of Etruscan Antiquities.” http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/italian-police-recover-trove-of-etruscan-antiquities/?_r=0. Accessed August 5, 2015.
  62. Prott, L. V. 1998. “UNESCO and UNIDROIT: A Partnership against Trafficking in Cultural Objects.” In N. Palmer, ed., 205–215.
  63. Prott, L. and P. O’Keefe. 1992. “’Cultural Heritage’ or ‘Cultural Property’?” International Journal of Cultural Property 1: 307–320.
  64. Renfrew, C. 1993. “Viewpoint: Collectors are the Real Looters.” Archaeology 46: 16–17.
  65. Renfrew, C. 2000. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership. London.
  66. Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn. 1996. Archaeology. Theories, Methods, and Practice. London.
  67. Rowan, Y. and U. Baram, eds. 2004. Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past. Walnut Creek, CA.
  68. Ruiz, C. 1999. “The Trade in Stolen Artefacts: Crustumerium, near Rome.” The Art Newspaper 98: 44–45.
  69. Ruiz, C. 2001. “My Life as a Tombarolo.” The Art Newspaper 112: 36–38.
  70. Siehr, K. 1992. “The UNIDROIT Draft Convention on the International Protection of Cultural Property.” International Journal of Cultural Property 1: 321–330.
  71. Siehr, K. 1993. “International Art Trade and Law.” Receuil des Cours 6: 13–293.
  72. Silver, V. 2009. The Lost Chalice. New York.
  73. Slayman, A. 2006. “The Trial in Rome.” http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/italytrial/. Accessed August 5, 2015.
  74. Spivey, N. 1997. Etruscan Art. London.
  75. Thoden van Velzen, D. 1996. “The World of Tuscan Tomb Robbers: Living with the Local Community and the Ancestors.” International Journal of Cultural Property 5: 111–126.
  76. UNESCO. 1970. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Accessed August 5, 2015.
  77. UNIDROIT. 1995. Draft Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. http://www.unidroit.org/english/conventions/1995culturalproperty/1995culturalproperty-e.htm. Accessed August 5, 2015.
  78. US–Italy Bilateral Agreement. 2001. Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological Material Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical, and Imperial Roman Periods of Italy, January 23, 2001. http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/it01agr.html. Accessed August 5, 2015.
  79. US Federal Register Notice.2001. Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological Material originating in Italy and Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical, and Imperial Roman Periods. January 23, 2001, 66(15): 7399–7402. http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/it01fr01.html. Accessed August 5, 2015.
  80. Vrdoljak, A. and F. Francioni, eds. 2009. The Illicit Traffic of Cultural Objects in the Mediterranean, EUI Working Papers, AEL 2009/9. Badia Fiesolana.
  81. Walker-Tubb, K., ed. 1995. Antiquities Trade or Betrayed: Legal, Ethical and Conservation Issues. London.
  82. Von Bothmer, D. 1975. “A Curator’s Choice.” In T. Hoving, ed., 111–122.
  83. Watson, P. 1997. Sotheby’s Inside Story. London.
  84. Watson, P. and C. Todeschini. 2006. The Medici Conspiracy. New York.
  85. Waxman, S. 2008. Loot: the Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World. New York.
  86. Weber, M. 2006. “New Swiss Law on Cultural Property.” International Journal of Cultural Property 13: 99–113.

GUIDE TO FURTHER READING

Gill and Chippindale 1993 is a seminal work that outlines the consequences of looting on our knowledge of the archaeological record; it takes a quantitative approach to studying the antiquities trade. Brodie, Doole, and Renfrew 2001 is one of the key academic texts and a good starter for archaeology students interested in the study of illicit antiquities or those from other disciplines who are interested in a global perspective on the issue. Renfrew 2000 is a lively and accessible introduction for readers approaching the subject for the first time. Brodie et al. 2006 provides a wide-ranging, inter-disciplinary and accessible account of the study of illicit antiquities. Nørskov 2002 provides an outstanding market analysis of a large corpus of Greek vases, functioning, also, as a study of museum collections. Watson and Todeschini 2006 takes Watson’s previous investigative reporting on looting and the illegal trade (Watson 1997) to the next level and includes detailed accounts of Giacomo Medici and looters in central Italy. Di Gennaro 2009 offers an informative view of legislation and various regulations applied to cultural property in Italy. Mackenzie and Green 2009 brings together archaeologists and criminologists to explore different ways of approaching research in illicit antiquities. Vrdoljak and Francioni 2009 is a highly technical report on looting and the legal protection of cultural property throughout the Mediterranean region.

A list of important websites and blogs focusing on looting, the art market and related heritage issues includes:

The above resources represent only a few of the books, journal articles, websites and blogs that share up-to-date news and analysis about looting and the illegal trade from around the world.