Abstract
In the 19th century, ‘scientific archaeologists’ split from their antiquarian colleagues over the role that provenience (context) plays in the value of an artifact. These archaeologists focus on documenting an artifact’s context when they remove it from its original location. Archaeologists then use this contextual information to place these artifacts within a particular larger assemblage, in a particular time and space. Once analyzed, the artifacts found in a site or region can be used to document, to understand, and explain the past. Given the central place of context for archaeological excavation, archaeologists have done everything in their power to combat the black market. Hoping to stem the tide, archaeologists have leveled attacks on those who excavate these materials, those who traffic in them, and those who purchase them. Unfortunately, despite decades of argument and legal wrangling, archaeologists have been unable to stop the black market. The purpose of this paper is to analyze this failure from the supply side (what archaeologists call looting) and to suggest better ways to engage other stakeholders to the benefit of most, if not all.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Kersel (2011, 521–524) provides a very interesting study of the varied groups interested in antiquities.
Although some archaeologists were calling for theoretical changes in the 19th century, in the United States, scientific (or new) archaeology became a major movement in the 1960s. Schnapp 1997 provides a good overview of the factors leading to the shift from pre-theoretical to theoretical archaeology. Trigger 1989 presents accounts of the methodological and theoretical changes going on in the field during this time period.
Brodie 2012 rightly notes (on p 232) that provenience (find spot) and provenance (the chain of ownership of an artifact after its extraction) are terms that are routinely confused and misused. While misrepresenting either is problematic, understanding why archaeologists are more concerned with the former (for scientific reasons), while curators are more interested in the latter (for legal reasons), is important.
Kersel argues contra Baudrillard 2001, who believes that a fetishized object loses its exchange value.
When Appiah (2006a) wrote Cosmopolitanism, he stated in his introduction (xx–xxi) that he was not attempting to write policy, and that his musings were meant to be philosophical. However, his remarks in his other works lay the foundation for a practical position, one that would change archaeological policy, as in Appiah 2009.
For example, prior to the 19th century, large earthworks in the American Midwest were attributed to the mythical “Mound Builders” rather than to the ancestors of Native American groups living nearby.
Brodie (1998) provides an analysis of the relative scale. He estimates that the person digging up the artifact receives about 1 % of the final value of that piece, with the vast majority of the profits going to the middlemen who move the antiquities between the original digger and the final buyer.
See Kersel 2011, 527.
See Bowman 2008 for a focused account of the current state of the archaeological black market.
Archaeologists are not alone here. A search for professional organizations’ ethical codes of conduct returns a confusing range of professional codes, legal codes, and ethical principles. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) at Universities and other research facilities, as mandated by title 45, part 46 of the US Code of Federal Regulations are designed to manage or mitigate potential ethical issues (meaning harm) to human participants involved in research. Additionally, many major cities in the United States have their own “Ethics Boards,” and these groups focus almost exclusively on settling disputes and citing individuals and groups for violations of codes and other legal matters.
This is not to say that ethicists can take no ethical stand, or that a lack of consensus (or a shared foundation) leads to ethical relativism. Even in anthropological archaeology, where cultural relativism is the norm, Salmon (1997) showed that it is possible to see cultures as relative without being forced to see ethics in a similar light.
Examples of legal, though unethical positions include the Taliban’s 2001 decision to destroy the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan.
Undisturbed is truly a relative term, as these artifacts have been impacted (unintentionally but significantly) by a variety of human-centered activities, including trawling and laying underwater cables.
The URL listed on the article (which was to provide updates on the project) no longer exists. This link http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~nes104/CAPQ.html (accessed 1 August, 2013) has CAPQ updates through 2003.
Although Beltrametti’s paper focuses on artifacts from Greece and Italy, the author hopes (2013, 207) that this idea will be studied in other contexts as well.
Suzie Thomas (2013) notes that legality does not equate with acceptance, as members of the archeological and various metal detecting communities continue to have a difficult relationship, despite the goals of laws like the PAS.
“About American Digger” online at http://www.spike.com/shows/american-digger (Accessed 1 August, 2013).
Charsky 2010 explains some hurdles that games developers face in moving from entertainment to edutainment.
References
Alderman KL (2010) The ethics of context: exploring assumptions in discussions about the looting of archaeological sites. ARCA J Art Crime, Fall/Winter 2010, pp 93–94
American Schools of Oriental Research (2003) Statement of ASOR policy on preservation and protection of archaeological resources. Online at http://www.asor.org/excavations/policy.html. Accessed 11 Apr 2013
Appiah KA (2006a) Cosmopolitanism: ethics in a world of strangers. W. W. Norton & Company, New York
Appiah KA (2006b) The case for contamination. The New York Times. January 1. Online at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/magazine/01cosmopolitan.html. Accessed 11 Apr 2013
Appiah KA (2009) Whose culture is it? In: Cuno J (ed) Whose culture: the promise of museums and the debate over antiquities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 71–86
Archaeological Institute of America (1997) Code of ethics. Online at http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/130. Accessed 11 Apr 2013
Baudrillard J (2001) Impossible exchange. (Chris Turner, trans). Verso Press, New York
Beale N (2012) How community archaeology can make use of open data to achieve further its objectives. World Archaeol 44(4):612–633
Beltrametti S (2013) Museum strategies: leasing antiquities. Columbia J Law Arts 36(2):203–260
Bowman BA (2008) Transnational crimes against culture: looting at archaeological sites and the “grey” market in antiquities. J Contemp Crim Justice 24(3):225–242, Online at http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/24/3/225 (accessed 11 Apr 2013)
Brodie N (1998) Pity the poor middlemen. Cult Without Context 3:7–9
Brodie N (2010) Archaeological looting and economic justice. Cultural Heritage Management. University Press of Florida, p 261–276
Brodie N (2012) Uncovering the antiquities market. In: Skeates R, McDavid C, Carman J (eds) The Oxford handbook of public archaeology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 230–252
Brodie N, Renfrew C (2005) Looting and the world’s archaeological heritage: the inadequate response. Annu Rev Anthropol 34:343–361
Charsky D (2010) From edutainment to serious games: a change in the use of game characteristics. Games Cult 5:177–198
Cuno J (2005) Museums, antiquities, cultural property, and the US legal framework for making acquisitions. In: Gibbon KF (ed) Who owns the past?: cultural policy, cultural property, and the law. Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, pp 143–158
Cuno J (2009) Introduction. In: Cuno J (ed) Whose culture: the promise of museums and the debate over antiquities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 1–35
Fincham D (2009) The fundamental importance of archaeological context. In: Charney N (ed) Art and crime: exploring the dark side of the art world. Greenwood Publishing, Westport, pp 1–12
Foucault M (1970) The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. Vintage Books, New York
Fredericksen C (2002) Caring for history: Tiwi and archaeological narratives of Fort Dundas/Punata, Melville Island. World Archaeol 34(2):288–302
Greene ES, Leidwanger J, Leventhal RM, Daniels BI (2011) Mare Nostrum? Ethics and archaeology in Mediterranean waters. Am J Archaeol 115(2):311–319
Hodder I (2011) Is a shared past possible? The ethics and practice of archaeology in the twenty-first century. In: Okamura K, Matsuda A (eds) New perspectives in global public archaeology. Springer, New York, pp 19–28
Holowell J (2006) Moral arguments on subsistence digging. In: Scarre C, Scarre G (eds) The ethics of archaeology: philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 69–96
Huffer D (2009) Conserving the past through play: educational gaming and anti-looting outreach in Cambodia. Bull Indo-Pacific Prehistory Assoc 29:92–100
Kersel MM (2011) When communities collide: competing claims for archaeological objects in the market place. Archaeologies: J World Archaeol Congr 7(3):518–537
Kersel MM (2012a) The value of a looted object: stakeholder perceptions in the antiquities trade. In: Skeates R, McDavid C, Carman J (eds) The Oxford handbook of public archaeology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 253–272
Kersel MM (2012b) The power of the press: the effects of press releases and popular magazines on the antiquities trade. In: Meyers EM, Meyers C (eds) Archaeology, bible, politics, and the media: proceedings of the Duke University Conference, April 23–24, 2009. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake
Krieger W (2006) Can there be a philosophy of archaeology: processual archaeology and the philosophy of science. Lexington Books, Lanham
Layton R, Wallace G (2006) Is culture a commodity? In: Scarre C, Scarre G (eds) The ethics of archaeology: philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 46–68
Moser S, Glazier D, Phillips JE, Nasser el Nemr L, Mousa MS, Aiesh RN, Richardson S, Conner A, Seymour M (2002) Transforming archaeology through practice: strategies for collaborative archaeology and the community archaeology project at Quseir, Egypt. World Archaeol 34(2):220–248
Nicholas GP, Wylie A (2009) Archaeological finds: legacies of appropriation, modes of response. In: Young JO, Brunk CG (eds) The ethics of cultural appropriation. Blackwell Publishing Co, Malden, pp 11–54
Salmon M (1997) Ethical considerations in anthropology and archaeology, or relativism and justice for all. J Anthropol Res 53(1):47–63
Schaffer J, Yazicioglu GB, Marshall ME (n.d.) To the Trowel’s edge: an interview with Ian Hodder. Exchange. University of Chicago. Online at http://ucexchange.uchicago.edu/interviews/hodder.html. Accessed 11 Apr 2013
Schnapp A (1997) The discovery of the past. Harry N Abrams, New York
Society for American Archaeology (1996) Principles of archaeological ethics. Online at http://www.saa.org/AbouttheSociety/PrinciplesofArchaeologicalEthics/tabid/203/Default.aspx. Accessed 11 Apr 2013
Society for Historical Archaeology (2003) Ethics statement. Online at http://www.sha.org/about/ethics.cfm. Accessed 11 Apr 2013
Thomas S (2013) Editorial: portable antiquities: archaeology, collecting, metal detecting. Internet Archaeology 33. Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.33.12. Accessed 1 Aug 2013
Trigger B (1989) A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Westcoat J Jr (2007) The Indo-Islamic garden: conflict, conservation/ and conciliation in Gujarat, India. In: Silverman H, Fairchild Ruggles D (eds) Cultural heritage and human rights. Springer, New York, pp 53–77
Wissler C (1917) The new archaeology. Am Mus J 17(2):100–101
Wylie A (1997) The engendering of archaeology refiguring feminist science studies. Osiris 12:80–99
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Krieger, W.H. Marketing Archaeology. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 17, 923–939 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9497-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9497-9