2014 William H Krieger. "Philosophy, Economics, and the Supply Side of the Archaeological Black...

Philosophy, Economics, and the Supply Side of the Archaeological Black Market Chapter 8 in The Free Market and the Human Condition

Pre-Publication copy William H Krieger, PhD.

ABSTRACT

Those of us living in modern democratic states like to think that we are more evolved (or at least

more rational) than our forbears. However, although we have made huge theoretical and

methodological strides in understanding the past, we are apparently no better than the rest of the

international community when it comes to matters of archaeological ethics. Arguing that an

artifact’s value must be associated with its find-spot, archaeologists have used a combination of

ethical arguments and international legislation to demand that non-archaeologists stop digging.

This position runs counter to other stakeholders’ beliefs in regard to the value of artifacts, and

the means used to stop local digging alienate groups living at the sites archaeologists visit. In this

paper, I will argue that only by understanding the value of artifacts to all stakeholders can

archaeologists effectively combat what they call “looting,” the supply side of the black market.

To this end, I will suggest some theoretical and ground level best practices to help archaeologists

better serve both the academy and the local economy.

INTRODUCTION

While poor countries do bear much of the brunt of looting, the illegal excavation of artifacts is a

worldwide problem, traversing socioeconomic and political boundaries as easily as the artifacts

themselves: “looting of archaeological sites and the dismemberment of ancient monuments are

problems that afflict countries as wealthy as the United States and the United Kingdom and as

poor as Mali and Bolivia” (Gerstenblith 2007, 169). While people have always collected artifacts,

Philosophy, Economics, and the Supply Side of the Archaeological Black Market

2

in the past century, scientifically minded archaeologists have sought to change the basis of value

for those materials. While other groups contend that artifacts continue to be valuable along what

could be seen as free market lines (supply and demand, rarity of base materials, etc.), to

archaeologists, artifacts are valued within their matrix of contextual information. This

information, located in and around the find spot of an artifact, is used to reconstruct an artifact’s

place in its special and temporal context (by distinguishing it from earlier and later material, and

by providing clues as to its role). Next, scholars link their local finds with the larger landscape,

hopefully connecting their excavation with others in the region and with already known, datable

materials. The goal of this ongoing process is to locate the local within the universal, increase

humanity’s storehouse of historical information. As these fragile pieces of data disappear during

the process of excavation, and as current laws attempting to stop the black market actually

encourage local diggers to destroy that contextual information, every artifact that is uncovered

for non-academic purposes (what archaeologists call ‘looting’) is seen by archaeologists as

destroying humanity’s birthright, knowledge of its past. “Valuable information is gained through

scientific excavation—information about associated architecture, finds, and mortuary contexts—

which is all but destroyed by the illegal excavation process. According to archaeologists once

artifacts enter the marketplace in their decontextualized state much of their relevant information

and the knowledge that can be gained are lost” (Kersel 2011 526). Running contra to this

position, a variety of other groups view archaeologists as competition for scarce resources.

Ignoring (or ignorant of) the way that archaeologists value artifacts, they maintain that an

artifact’s value should continue to reside in its scarcity, beauty, and appeal to the buyer. The

purpose of this paper is to explore these seemingly incompatible positions and to argue for a

William H Krieger, PhD.

3

consilience model, one that would reset the market, making archaeological context valuable to

both archaeologists and local diggers.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL VALUES

The archaeological position on the collection and study of artifacts is based on their concerns

(stated above) about the fragility of provenience information. As these contextual data are the

keys to unlocking human history, which is of benefit to all, archaeologists argue that there is a

universal ethical imperative to protect archaeological context1. This position has led

archaeological groups to create codes of conduct that contain anti-looting language, to urge

governments to enact legislation to protect sites from looters, and to persuade international

groups to condemn black market activities.

As a member of the archaeological community, this author must admit that this position seems

wholly rational and appropriate. In fact, many I and many of my fellow archaeologists have

spent years wondering how other “players” in the archaeological antiquities market are able to

continue their activities, knowing (as they must) the destruction that they are responsible for.

However, despite archaeological protestations people involved in the antiquities trade believe

that they have a right to claim these artifacts as their property. Given that local diggers have no

reason to be interested in provenience (and that existing laws encourage them to destroy

contextual information)2, it makes sense that their interests are in the monetary value associated

1 Fincham 2009 provides a good example of an archaeologist expressing what he believes are universally compelling and obvious reasons to block non-archaeological digging. 2 As the United States of America is a signatory on the 1970 UNESCO convention on the Means for Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, only finds ‘discovered’ by collectors prior to that date are able to be bought and sold legally. In any country that is held to this convention will prosecute people in violation of the convention, any digger who is currently in the field has no choice but to strip all


4

with artifacts They would like to replace the extant international export bans on decontextualized

artifacts with policies where forces such as supply and demand, the value of the materials

making up the artifact, and the rarity of the finds themselves, would drive artifact collection and

sale. Adding insult to injury, people routinely call archaeologists to authenticate or evaluate

pieces that they own or are planning to purchase, and to protect both archaeologist and artifact

from exploitation, most professional archaeological societies have developed policies against

being the means for these finds to become a part of the academic record. This is, in part, done

because archaeologists are concerned with “the increasing commodification of information in the

21st century (Alderman 2010, 93). Their fear is that discussing or authenticating these pieces will

make them complicit in the current market and will fuel future illegal activity.3 Their alternative,

to block what they perceive as the devaluation of artifacts (stripping them of their value to

humanity) is done for the noblest of reasons, the dissemination of knowledge to all. As such, the

strength of archaeological position rests on a strong foundation, the idea that the protection of

find-spot information is important to all, that it is a universal good.

The belief that everyone is interested in ‘learning about their’ history sounds believable.

However, it turns out that this belief is not well founded for a couple of reasons. On one hand, in

the past, scientists have used historical data to undermine indigenous groups’ histories (or

metaphysical underpinnings) or to reify long-standing inequities between the strong and weak.

Even in modern times, indigenous groups bristle at archaeologists when they argue that their

long held oral and written histories need to be corrected by foreign scientists. Added to this,

many modern governments now have the power to legislate on the fate of artifacts on (or under) finds of any contextual information that can place them in space and time. In place of the real information, the digger and antiquities network invent a false history, which has the consequence of doubly destroying that artifact’s ability to provide contextual information. 3 Including, but not limited to the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Archaeological Institute of America, the Society for American Archaeology, and the Society for Historical Archaeology.


5

their soil. As such, local groups have reason to believe that decisions about a particular artifact’s

fate may be subject to the interests of those currently in power. Historically, governments

worldwide have determined that certain artifacts or archaeological sites are not worth saving. In

some extreme cases, authorities have ordered the destruction of artifacts belonging to non-

dominant groups.4 Even in cases when a country might have no stake in the outcome of an

archaeological controversy, governments, with far more attorneys than philosophers on their

payroll, may find themselves more able to handle questions surrounding legality and liability

than abstract ideals of right and wrong. “Put another way, ethics have to do with what is right

and wrong while law has to do with ·what is allowed and proscribed. Sometimes the law is

consistent with what is generally perceived as ethical, but quite often something can be right

even if it's illegal or, conversely, it can be wrong even if not proscribed” (Alderman 2010, 93).5

Another point of anger between landowners and archaeologists is that the former see the latter as

a foreign influence on what should be a local matter. In many countries, archaeologists determine

whether a piece of land is of archaeological significance. Archaeologists are seen as coming onto

private property and removing valuable artifacts from under the feet the people who believe they

own them6. In the end, whether indigenous people are digging for supper, for entertainment, as a

political statement, or as a way to entice visitors, they generally see archaeological claims on

4 Such as the Bamiyan Buddhas, destroyed on orders of the Taliban in Afghanistan, after they were declared idols. 5 Examples of legal, though unethical positions include the Taliban’s 2001 decision to destroy the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan and the Nazi’s appropriation of art owned by Jews. In both cases, the reigning government enacted laws that are clearly in conflict with ethical behavior. 6 The question: “who really ‘owns’ the artifacts” is among the more complex issues here. Is it the modern property owners or community (see Layton and Wallace 2006, 58), the modern government (as is generally argued as a matter of law), the direct descendants of the creators (a position that resulted in NAGPRA), or humanity as a whole (the archaeological position, and coupled with the demand that archaeology cease, Cuno 2009)? For underwater archaeology, this problem is compounded, as many other stakeholders could come forward, including the artifact’s original owner, the ship’s owner, the ship’s nationality, the embarkation or intended debarkation port of the ship, the final location of the ship, or the salvagers who recovered the material.


6

artifacts as a power grab by an outside group who wishes to benefit from ‘their’ property7. The

result of these competing and conflicting interests has spiraled out of control, resulting in the

current state of the black market, a very dangerous, very profitable (though not for the diggers),

and very illegal operation.8

Rather than fight, one might imagine that another alternative might be for both sides to stop

digging. There are good arguments to leaving artifacts and sites undisturbed. The best of these is

that, with time, archaeological techniques would probably allow archaeologists to gain more

knowledge from sites than we can now. By removing materials, even archaeologists are possibly

destroying (future) provenience data. For this reason, archaeologists routinely leave portions of

their sites unexcavated. However, given the rampant destruction of sites, whether uncovered by

archaeologists or not, and given the damage that both natural processes (such as earthquakes)

and unintentional human impacts (such as the trawling over undersea sites) have on

archaeological materials, archaeologists do not see this as an option. Diggers are also not going

to find the idea of leaving artifacts in the ground especially compelling (for reasons just

mentioned). So, this is not a realistic option.

So, in short, the archaeological market is currently fractured, with two groups each claiming the

validity of their position regarding artifact extraction. The groups work to each other’s detriment

and refuse to acknowledge the claims of their adversaries as being other than governed by self-

interest. As decades of criminalizing digging have proven ineffective at curbing the black market

on the supply side, this author’s hope is to find a way forward that might appeal to

archaeological and local stakeholders.

7 For a larger discussion of the motives for and perils of digging, see Krieger 2014 and Brodie 2010. 8 See Bowman 2008 for a focused account of the current state of the archaeological black market.


7

(RE)SETTING THE TABLE

Sitting down at the table with the enemy is not easy. Kersel (2011) agrees: “In order to engage

and collaborate with all of the communities involved in the trade I had to acknowledge my own

academic predispositions and to consider all interest groups on equal footing, moving beyond my

entrenched notions of good guys and bad guys in the trade in antiquities“ (521). Once at the table,

the question is whether the different stakeholders can find sufficient common ground (or interest)

to move forward. Clearly, there will be some who will refuse to be a part of the conversation. For

instance, there are some who enjoy the status quo. The illegal antiquities trade has become a

multinational enterprise, using many of the same people, routes, and methods as drug and human

trafficking, Those who are in charge of this very dangerous, very profitable enterprise are not

likely going to be convinced that working with archaeologists (which would strip much of their

financial take from artifact sales) is preferable to their current activities. However, as local

diggers, the source of much of the black market’s materials, do not share in these profits, a case

can be made to them that might result in their betterment. Could this result in an impact on the

larger black market? “It is hoped that, if archaeologists can establish consultative, reciprocal and

collaborative forms of practice as a disciplinary standard, this will have a ‘trickle up’ effect in

the public domain and market place where so much second-order appropriation of archaeological

finds occurs” (Nicholas and Wylie 2009, 36-37).

Even if archaeologists and other diggers have the best of intentions and are able to sit down

together, collaboration can be difficult to achieve for a variety of reasons, not limited to the

different levels of education and the different metaphysical and epistemological commitments of


8

the archaeological and local communities. In fact, as we have already seen, much of the current

problem stems from both archaeologists and diggers assuming that they possess the ethical and

epistemological high ground. When he comes to the table with others who have radically

different perspectives as regards the past, Archaeologist Ian Hodder does not have high

expectations for agreement, and what agreement there is stops short of anything that either side

would expect as a baseline, much less as a common core belief system: “Perhaps one can build

guidelines for a universal ‘best practice’ on collaborative dialogue on heritage on the basis of

these two simple principles – to listen and to respect. However, in cases of extreme conflict,

barbarism and death, when the sides feel nothing but hurt and anger, even these expectations

seem too high” (Hodder 2011, 23) That being said, there are philosophers and archaeologists

who argue that the hardships are not only worth the extra work, but that they result in better

archaeology. “Some of the most creative of these initiatives are predicated on a commitment to

involve Indigenous peoples directly in the practice of archaeology, a process that often

significantly reframes and enriches archaeological practice” (Nicholas and Wylie 2009, 18).

The question that needs to be asked here is not whether archaeologists can work with indigenous

communities. There are numerous examples of great archaeologists and great local groups

putting aside their reservations with each other to do good work. Examplesofthisinclude

Hodder’songoingworkatÇatalhöyük9, the Community Archaeology movement10, the

9 Schaffer et. al (n.d.) helps the reader understand how Hodder’s goals and motives have shaped his innovative archaeological work. 10 See Moser et. al 2002 for an example of community archaeology’s impact on both archaeology and local populations.


9

Indigenous Archaeology movement11, and work from the standpoint of archaeological theory and

the philosophy of science.12

What needs to happen here is more fundamental. There needs to be a shift in the market so that

archaeological and local interests are more in line with each other. Although this may seem

shocking (or, to archaeologists, distasteful), the fact is that the chasm between archaeologists and

local diggers may not be as great as we might suppose.

In fact, realignment may (to some extent) be a simple as a good publicity campaign. People

living near a site may have a hard time understanding how their activities are substantively

different than those of archaeologists. While local diggers see a difference in methods (with

archaeologists slowly working in clear, balk delineated, areas) the results appear to be the same.

In the end, the objects are unearthed, photographs are taken, and the artifacts are taken away

from the area, never to be seen again. Archaeology, in the minds of the public, is largely a

fantasy that is inspired by major motion pictures, television shows, museum exhibitions, news

stories in mainstream media, and popular books about archaeology and archaeologists. Not only

do these programs misrepresent archaeology, they actually drive the antiquities trade, and as

Kersel demonstrates: …”those who support a position of free-trade in antiquities, regardless of

the damage to the archaeological landscape, are waging a much more successful public relations

campaign in the media than those in the realm of archaeology” (Kersel 2012b, 76). The public

usually encounters artifacts in museums, where contextual information is rarely present and even

more rarely highlighted, and by watching television (from American Digger to Antique

11 Stillman 2008 is an edited volume that shares the experiences of archaeologists and local populations as they work on archaeological, conservation, and heritage programs collaboratively. 12 Theorists have been working on these issues for some time. Some who have called for or suggested specific methods to move archaeology forward in this regard include Trigger 1989, Nicholas and Wylie 2009, and Krieger 2014.


10

Roadshow), where artifacts are collected to be brought to market. On the other hand, academic

archaeologists are forced to spend much of their time publishing in peer-reviewed journals in

order to maintain their academic credentials or employment. Unfortunately, these journals do not

reach the general populace, both because of the subscription pay-walls of many academic

journals and due to their academic focus. If people interested in archaeological context want to

make headway against this trend, perhaps people need to start working with the mainstream

media and to find other ways to connect with the general populace.

If archaeologists, diggers, and the general populace, can get past the fantasy world of movies and

the angry rhetoric equating all looting with selfish profiteering, the ground will be set for the

next stage, changing the foundations of the market itself. Although proponents of so-called free

market capitalism claim that the market runs itself. However, economists and politicians know

differently. All markets are subject to a number of guiding forces, and changes to these guiding

forces have real impacts on whether certain actions are profitable or not. 13

There are many examples of governments (federal or state) using government subsidies to

encourage economic development of some (as opposed to other) technologies. For example, by

subsidizing the cost of oil and gas (especially during this energy source’s infancy), the

government made it possible for oil companies to develop the technology and infrastructure they

needed to solidify their position in the energy business. In recent years, renewable energy

subsidies have overtaken oil and gas subsidies,14 which has led to sharp price reductions in the

13 Tomasi (2012) provides a provocative thesis, that there is a consistent middle ground between libertarianism and liberalism. This and other recent theoretical treatises give this author hope that the market can be properly shaped. 14 Although this is true, it is worth noting that renewables have gotten far less in their infancy as technologies than did oil and gas. For a study of this issue and its impact on the development of these technologies, see Pfund and Healy 2011).


11

cost of solar15 and wind16 power. According to education experts, prison recidivism rates can

also be subject to government subsidies. In another arena, multiple studies have shown that

educating prisoners is a way to radically drop recidivism rates17. According to the Bureau of

Justice, in 2001, the annual cost of a college education ($8,000) was shown to be significantly

lower than the annual cost of housing an inmate ($22,650).18 As a result, these studies make a

forceful argument for the use of federal and state funds for prison education as a way to promote

safety and save taxpayer money. 19

Although this author does not believe that shifting government subsides or direct monetary

investment will aid archaeologists in their quest to preserve contextual data, the question remains

whether economic forces (or other agreements) can be used to shift profitability from those who

destroy contextual information to those who value the preservation of provenience. The rest of

this chapter will be devoted to exploring this question.

THE MARKET RELOADED

Is it possible to create conditions such that archaeological and local interests can intersect? Can

economists have an impact on archaeology? Lest we believe that economists are not up to such a

job, economic theorists such as John Broome have argued to the contrary, that economists have a

responsibility to act as ethical agents in these sorts of cases.

15 http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data (accessed March 6, 2014). 16 http://www.truthaboutwindpower.com/truth/the-case-for-wind/affordable/more-info (accessed March 6 2014). 17 Examples include the meta-analysis conducted by Vacca 2004 and a report submitted to the Office of Correctional Education by Steurer et. al 2001. 18 http://prisonstudiesproject.org/why-prison-education-programs/#reduces (accessed March 6, 2014). 19 Interestingly, despite these numbers, responding to unrelated economic issues an public demands that prisoners should not get a free education at the expense of others,Pell grants for prisoners were cut from the federal budget in 1994, and as of 2009, only about 1/3 of state prisons offer post-secondary education.


12

Economics is a branch of ethics. Well, that’s an exaggeration, because parts of economics are pure science; they aim to account for the behaviour of people and institutions in the economic arena. But more than most scientists, economists have their eye on practical applications. Most of them are interested in economic science because they are interested in finding better ways of running the economy, or of structuring the economic system, or of intervening or not intervening in the economy. All of that practical part of economics is a branch of ethics. Why? First, it’s about how things ought to be done, which means it’s normative. (That’s what we mean by ‘normative’: concerned with what ought to be done.) But merely being normative is not necessarily being ethical. In your writing, you ought to give preference to short Anglo-Saxon words over long Latin words. That’s a normative requirement on you, but it’s not an ethical requirement. It’s not universally agreed just how the ethical is to be distinguished from the rest of the normative. But in contexts that involve conflicts between the interests of different people, normative claims are certainly ethical, and this includes virtually all normative claims that are made in economics. (Broome 2000, 1)

Whether economists want to admit it or not (and Broome suggests that at least some do not),

economists have a responsibility to advise the public in matters where individual desires may

conflict with the greater good. Of course, other economists would disagree, arguing that

economics should remain pure. “Some economists hold the opinion that the use of economic

analysis beyond its traditional boundaries is of doubtful value and gives economics a bad name,

especially among the other social sciences” (Sandmo 2011, 446). However, this author believes

that if economists are making normative judgments when they set economic policy, they should

be brought up to date on the economics of the archaeological and black markets.

One way for economists to enter this discussion with archaeologists and other stakeholders might

be to help define the short and long term impacts of the antiquities market on those communities

involved in the black market. Brodie (2010, 263-266) suggests that while focusing on the

economic value (as opposed to the cultural value) of artifacts may lead to short term profits for

the individuals involved, the long term impact on these communities, in terms of lost tourism

income and the loss of academic and cultural prestige, provides a strong argument for the

alternative, archaeological excavation. This trade off (individual short term profit for long term


13

regional financial stability) occurs because, in the former case, the money generated by local

digging leaves the dig-site (minus 1% of the artifact’s value, which goes to the digger), and is

exported to the country where the artifact lands after being exported. This piece will provide its

payoff by generating income in a museum (by selling tickets) by providing educational

opportunities and material for scholarship, or through repeated sale, etc.) At the same time, the

subsistence diggers who found the materials carry much of the risk, as they are violating local

laws. In the latter case, the economic benefit goes to the source country. In many cases, artifacts

remain in the country where they were excavated, and these finds can then be used to set up

archaeo-tourism, to sponsor research, and to increase media coverage. While this study may not

stop individuals from selling artifacts (benefitting the community that it might be to their best

financial interest to focus on preservation instead of individual profit. To further make his case

for local protection of artifacts, Brodie (2010, 273) suggests that museums wanting to display

artifacts over an extended period might rent (rather than borrow) those materials, with the

proceeds going back to the source communities. Silvia Beltrametti (2013) and Michael Kremer

and Tom Wilkening (2010) offer similar suggestions, suggesting the possibility of creating

leasing agreements and other financial packages that would benefit both source and destination

markets in ways that current legislation, focused on export bans, do not.

Beltrametti uses successful case studies of loans and cooperation agreements between museums

and foreign governments to show that leasing agreements could be packaged in a way that would

be as attractive to museums as Brodie believes it could be to local communities. 20 Further,

Beltrametti believes that renting or leasing artifacts would provide a mechanism to bring together

two groups who are usually at odds with one another. “With the help of this data, this Article

20 Although Beltrametti’s paper focuses on artifacts from Greece and Italy, the author suggests (2013, 207) that this work could be studied in other contexts as well.


14

aims to show that long-term leases could not only be an attractive addition to existing collecting

strategies, but could also bridge some of the issues raised in the nationalist versus internationalist

debate” (Beltrametti 2013, 206). On one side, those who believe that there is an obligation to

share artifacts with the world would be able to do so, possibly with increased access as the

owners might lease artifacts that they would never sell. And in addition to taking looters out of

the loop, Beltrametti shows that cooperation agreements today, and hopefully leases in the future,

would allow for increased movement of antiquities, as current legislation, in attempting to curtail

illegal trade, has put up significant roadblocks against legal trade as well. On the other side, this

sort of program would directly aid in the preservation of the sites and communities now being

ravaged for the benefit of people foreign to the find-spots of these artifacts.

Coming to the same conclusion from a different perspective, economists Kremer and Wilkening

also show that the status quo should be replaced with financial tools that would eliminate much

of the appetite for artifacts that currently drives the black market, and would bridge the gap

between those who believe that artifacts can be owned and those who see artifacts as belonging

to humanity.

Debates between cultural nationalists and internationalists have focused on the desirability of export bans. We argue that it may be appropriate to consider a broader class of contracts, including leases and perhaps sales with explicit repurchase options. Under three of the potential rationales for export bans we consider | the difficulty of repurchasing objects once sold, the possibility that corrupt officials will expropriate the value of the national patrimony, and the need for external price signals in providing information rents | leases or sales with options to repurchase may protect a countries long-term interest in objects as well or better than export bans while generating more revenue for the country and improving maintenance incentives. (Kremer and Wilkening 2010, 29)

Their data driven study explores a wide range of scenarios and shows, from a strictly economic

perspective, that leases (the safest choice when corruption is rampant) and sales with repurchase


15

options (under more ideal conditions) would benefit all parties in a variety of ways, including

giving short or long term revenue to poor countries or helping offset the high preservation costs

needed for the protection some artifacts, costs that might not be within the means of the source

country.

Obviously, the details in proposals like Brodie’s or Beltrametti’s would have to be worked out,

and Kremer and Wilkening (2020, 29-30) note with worry that a part of their paper (suggesting

the sale artifacts, even with repurchasing contracts) might give unintentional credence to those

who equate value with a dollar amount. However, economically informed policies such as these

could help to preserve find-spot information, would increase international access to artifacts, and

would, at the same time, provide recompense to the people whose lives are impacted by the

presence (and then absence) of those artifacts.

Just as economically informed archaeologists have proposed some ways to help nudge the

market in the right direction, other groups, seeing the rampant looting going on around them,

have suggested ways (ranging from the intriguing to the clearly non-ideal) to at lease mitigate the

damage being done to the archaeological record. These projects have in common with the

archaeological projects mentioned above the idea that controlled excavation profitable to local

diggers is preferable to having them dig on their own and hide their sites from archaeologists.

Channeling the frustration of many who see ongoing destruction as the byproduct of the war

between archaeologists and local diggers, Philosopher Kwame Appiah, speaking of the mass

destruction of sites going on in Mali asks: “Suppose they had required that objects be recorded

and registered before leaving, and stipulated that if the national museum wished to keep an

object, it would have to pay a market price for it, the acquisition fund being supported by a tax

on the price of the exported objects. The digs encouraged by such a system would have been less


16

well-conducted and less informative than proper, professionally administered digs by accredited

archaeologists. Some people would still have avoided the rules. But mightn’t all this have been

better than what actually happened?” (Appiah 2009, 77-78)

Overwhelmed by looting in the Ghor Es-Safi region, in the 1980s, the Jordanian Department of

Antiquities (DOA), in consultation with archaeologists in the area, developed a buy-back

strategy to satisfy local diggers’ financial needs by rewarding the protection of archaeological

provenience data. “In exchange for information, looters and dealers would receive financial

compensation for the artefacts in tier possession – further reinforcing the exchange value of the

artefacts. The archaeologists (under the auspices of the Jordanian DOA) would receive artefacts

and associated contextual information” (Kersel 2012a, 265). Archaeologists would associate the

monetary value of an artifact with the contextual information the digger could document.

Photographs, other documentary evidence, exact find-spot locations of artifacts, and the like,

would result in a better payout than would less (or no) information. This project was designed

cut out middlemen who would have profited from these sales, connecting instead the digger with

the archaeological community. This program resulted in bringing many artifacts back to the

region, allowing for their publication in academic journals.

In England and Wales, “Both the Treasure Act [1996] and the Portable Antiquities Scheme

[2001] were created partially through the archaeological community acknowledging that portable

antiquities are a commodity for which members of the public will continue to search in their

leisure time. Both archaeologists and pothunters value ‘portable culture’, and because they have

worked together on this common interest many finds have been reported and documented in

England and Wales since the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) and Treasure Act were created”

(Layton and Wallace 2006, 62). These laws allow people to look for metal artifacts with the aid


17

of metal detectors, guaranteeing them payment for their finds if they report them to the

government so that archaeological teams can then go out excavate (and give provenience to) the

archaeological material they have located. Of course, as Suzie Thomas (2013) shows, 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.

Northeastern Mali’s CultureBank allowed local diggers to bring their finds to local museums

where they could ‘bank’ them as collateral for low interest business loans. “The exchange value

is based on the information gathered as [art of the historical documentation process – the more

information the greater the assessed value. If the exact find-spot of the archaeological item is

recorded (if known) this raises the economic value of the item. If the piece has a long familial

history of ownership this is also recorded and can enhance the objects’ economic worth” (Kersel

2012a, 266).

In some ways, each of these collaborative agreements between governments, archaeologists, and

antiquities diggers could be seen positively. However, before these sorts of programs are put

forward as ‘proof of concept’ success stories, these case studies also highlight the dangers that

archaeologists cite when they worry about the antiquities market. For one thing, although buy-

back programs may lessen the export of artifacts, there are no data showing that this stops local

diggers. One could argue further that by assigning prices to artifacts, the archaeological

community is reinforcing the idea that artifacts should be seen as commodities, a danger that

always looms in archaeologists’ minds.

Coming from another direction during his now famous 2002 walk across Afghanistan, British

MP Rory Stewart saw the destruction caused by the despair gripping that war torn country: “I


18

first saw it at the beginning of 2002. I had walked from Herat to Kabul that winter. I had seen

hundreds of pickaxe-wielding villagers, directed by Pakistani traders, uncovering, looting and

destroying the ancient city of the Turquoise Mountain, the lost Afghan capital of the Middle

Ages. The Taliban had just blown up two monumental Buddhas that had stood, carved into the

side of a cliff in the Bamiyan Valley, since the sixth century. I found new craters, left by looters,

on mountain ridges at 11,000 feet.” (Stewart 2011). Returning in 2005 at the behest of Prince

Charles, Stewart set up a NGO, the Turquoise Mountain Foundation, to try to turn the tide, using

his strengths at motivating people and fundraising to bring a Murad Khane, a Kabul slum set to

be demolished back to its 19th century glory, engaging the local populace to work to restore and

reconnect to its own cultural heritage. Putting in place vocational schools to teach traditional

calligraphy and woodworking and pairing historic preservation with 21st century updates (i.e.

adding electricity and plumbing), Stewart sees this neighborhood as a test case in urban renewal.

Stewart is neither an archaeologist nor a city planner, and his work has raised a number of

questions about his focus and his chances of success. However, in 2013 the restoration of Murad

Khane’s Great Serai resulted in the TAG receiving an award of distinction from UNESCO.

Whether he succeeds in saving the Khane (which is still officially scheduled for demolition), his

idea, to set up the resources so that local people can gain the skills that they need to recapture

their history, is laudable.21

CONCLUSION

21 For more information on this project, see http://www.turquoisemountain.org/about.html (accessed March 6, 2014).


19

While this article can propose no solution to the ‘antiquities problem,’ understanding that the

concept of archaeological value, a term that is equally economic and ethical, may allow for

archaeologists and diggers to see each others in a better light. If people can have differing (and

not necessarily unreasonable) starting points when thinking about artifacts, then clearly,

pronouncements of ‘right and wrong’ or ‘legal and illegal’ are not going to be sufficient to move

other stakeholders into stopping their activities. From the case studies referenced above, it is

clear that many archaeologists have already decided, whether for their own or for mutual benefit,

to work with communities. However, to have a serious impact on the antiquities market,

archaeologists need to continue to step up their game in a number of ways, rethinking (and

continually reevaluating) their own practices, gaining a better understanding of the economics of

archaeological value, and then making the case that the preservation of context can be of value to

all parties (even if each group values different things).

Obviously, there is every reason to believe that the black market will continue, regardless of

economic insights, archaeological efforts, successful licensing agreements, and creative tools.

However, if archaeologists can start to think a little bit more like economists, if they can make

their case for archaeological value, then I see a real potential for archaeologists and local

communities to work together profitably, in ways that will result in mutual gain.

WORKS CITED

Alderman, Kimberly L. (2008). The Ethical Trade In Cultural Property: Ethics And Law In The

Antiquity Auction Industry. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law. 14:3, 1-22.

Online at http://works.bepress.com/kimberly_alderman/1 (accessed April 11, 2013).


20

___ (2010). The Ethics of Context: Exploring Assumptions in Discussions about the Looting of

Archaeological Sites. ARCA Journal of Art Crime. Fall/Winter, 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 April 11, 2013).

Archaeological Institute of America (1997). Code of Ethics. Online at

http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/130 (accessed April 11, 2013).

Appiah, Kwame A. (2009). Whose Culture is it? Pp. 71-86 in Whose Culture: The Promise of

Museums and the Debate Over Antiquities, James Cuno (ed.), Princeton, NY: Princeton

University Press.

Beltrametti, Silvia (2013). Museum Strategies: Leasing Antiquities. Columbia Journal of Law &

The Arts 36: 2, 203-260.

Bowman, Blythe A. (2008). Transnational Crimes Against Culture: Looting at Archaeological

Sites and the ''Grey'' Market in Antiquities. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 24:

3, 225-242. Online at http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/24/3/225 (accessed April 11, 2013).

Brodie, Neil (2010). Archaeological Looting and Economic Justice. Cultural Heritage

Management. University Press of Florida, p 261-276.

Broome, John (2000). Why economics needs ethical theory. Conference Paper: British

Association for the Advancement of Science. London.

Cuno, James (2009). Whose Culture: The Promise of Museums and the Debate Over Antiquities,

James Cuno (ed.), Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.


21

Fincham, Derek. (2009). The Fundamental Importance of Archaeological Context, Pp. 1-12 in N.

Charney (ed.), Art and Crime: Exploring the dark side of the art world. Westport:

Greenwood Publishing.

Gerstenblith, Patty (2007). Controlling the International Market in Antiquities: Reducing the

Harm, Preserving the Past, 8 CHI. J. INT'L L. 169, 169.

Hodder, Ian (2011). Is a Shared Past Possible? The Ethics and Practice of Archaeology in the

Twenty-First Century. New Perspectives in Global Public Archaeology. Okamura,

Katsuyuki and Akira Matsuda (eds.), New York: Springer, p 19-28.

Holowell, Julie (2006). Moral arguments on subsistence digging. Pp. 69-96 in The Ethics of

Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice. Chris Scarre and

Geoffrey Scarre (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kersel, Morag M (2011). When Communities Collide: Competing Claims for Archaeological

Objects in the Market Place. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological

Congress 7: 3, 518-537.

___. (2012a), The value of a looted object: Stakeholder perceptions in the antiquities trade. Pp.

253-272 in R. Skeates, C. McDavid, and J. Carman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public

Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

___. (2012b), The Power of the Press: The Effects lf Press Releases and Popular Magazines on

the Antiquities Trade. Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media: Proceedings of the

Duke University Conference, April 23–24, 2009. Eric M. Meyers and Carol Meyers (eds.),

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.


22

Kremer, Michael and Tom Wilkening (2010). Protecting Antiquities: A Role for Long-Term

Leases? Department of Economics – Working Papers Series 1114, The University of

Melbourne. Online at

http://www.tomwilkening.com/images/Kremer_Wilkening_Protecting_Antiquities.pdf

(accessed September 1, 2013).

Krieger, William (2014). Marketing Archaeology. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. DOI

10.1007/s10677-014-9497-9. Online at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-

014-9497-9(accessedMarch6,2014).

Layton, Robert, and Gillian Wallace (2006). Is culture a commodity? Pp. 46-68 in The Ethics of

Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice, Chris Scarre and

Geoffrey Scarre (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moser, Stephanie, Darren Glazier, James E. Phillips, Lamya Nasser el Nemr, Mohammed Saleh

Mousa, Rascha Nasr Aiesh, Susan Richardson, Andrew Conner and Michael Seymour

(2002). Transforming Archaeology through Practice: Strategies for Collaborative

Archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt. World

Archaeology 34: 2, October, 220-248.

Nicholas, George P. and Alison Wylie (2009). Archaeological Finds: Legacies of Appropriation,

Modes of Response. Pp. 11-54 in The Ethics of Cultural Appropriation, James O. Young

and Conrad G. Brunk (eds.), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Co.

Pfund, Nancy and Ben Healey (2011). “What Would Jefferson Do: The Historical Roots of

Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future.” DBL Investors. September 2011.


23

Online at http://www.dblinvestors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/What-Would-

Jefferson-Do-2.4.pdf?db4444 (accessed March 6, 2014).

Sandmo, Agnar (2011). Economics Evolving: A History of Economic Thought. Princeton:

Princeton University Press

Schaffer, Jennifer ,Gokce Bike Yazicioglu, and Maureen E. Marshall. To The Trowel’s Edge: An

Interview with Ian Hodder. Exchange. University of Chicago. Online at

http://ucexchange.uchicago.edu/interviews/hodder.html (accessed April 11, 2013).

Society for American Archaeology (1996). Principles of Archaeological ethics. Online at

http://www.saa.org/AbouttheSociety/PrinciplesofArchaeologicalEthics/tabid/203/Default.a

spx (accessed April 11. 2013).

Society for Historical Archaeology (2003). Ethics Statement. Online at

http://www.sha.org/about/ethics.cfm (accessed April 11, 2013).

Stewart, Rory (2011). “Cool Under Fire.” Intelligent Life Magazine. September/October. Online

at http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/places/cool-under-fire (accessed March 6, 2014).

Stillman, Stephen, ed. (2008). Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in

Indigenous Archaeology. Tucsan: The University of Arizona Press.

Thomas, Suzie (2013). Editorial: Portable antiquities: archaeology, collecting, metal detecting.

Internet Archaeology 33. Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.33.12 (accessed August 1,

2013).

Tomasi, John. (2012) Free Market Fairness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


24

Trigger, Bruce (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

2014 William H Krieger. "Philosophy, Economics, and the Supply Side of the Archaeological Black...

Documents

Transcript of 2014 William H Krieger. "Philosophy, Economics, and the Supply Side of the Archaeological Black...