Online markets may be doing more to reduce the looting of antiquities than the always feuding museum directors.

Archaeology reports on the unforeseen consequences of “the emergence of eBay, the Internet auction site that, among other things, lets people sell looted artifacts.” The looting of archaeological sites has always been a problem, but before the internet reduced the costs of showing, selling, and transporting the loot, archaeologists “could at least take some comfort that [the market in illegal artifacts] was largely confined to either high-end dealers on one end of the economic spectrum or rural flea markets on the other.” Thus, the new technology raised the specter the democratization of trafficking and, as a result, widespread looting. “This seemed a logical outcome of a system in which anyone could open up an eBay site and sell artifacts dug up by locals anywhere in the world. We feared that an unorganized but massive looting campaign was about to begin, with everything from potsherds to pieces of the Great Wall on the auction block for a few dollars.”

But instead, looting has diminished. Why? “The short answer is that many of the primary ‘producers’ of the objects have shifted from looting sites to faking antiquities.”

The economics of these transactions are quite simple. Because the eBay phenomenon has substantially reduced total costs by eliminating middlemen, brick-and-mortar stores, high-priced dealers, and other marginal expenses, the local eBayers and craftsmen can make more money cranking out cheap fakes than they can by spending days or weeks digging around looking for the real thing. It is true that many former and potential looters lack the skills to make their own artifacts. But the value of their illicit digging decreases every time someone buys a “genuine” Moche pot for $35, plus shipping and handling. In other words, because the low-end antiquities market has been flooded with fakes that people buy for a fraction of what a genuine object would cost, the value of the real artifacts has gone down as well, making old-fashioned looting less lucrative. The value of real antiquities is also impacted by the increased risk that the object for sale is a fake. The likelihood of reselling an authentic artifact for more money is diminished each year as more fakes are produced.

Another economic factor–risk of arrest–is also removed by eBay fakes, since you can’t be arrested for importing forgeries. Should you import what you think is an illegal antiquity but it turns out to be a fake, you run little risk of prosecution. The risk from lawsuits or criminal charges is effectively removed from the sale of antiquities when they are not really antiquities, a fact that reduces the cost and risk to both buyer and seller.

Transport cost is also dramatically reduced by commerce on the Web. One vendor on eBay advertises a Greek marble head dated to around 300 B.C. For this “rare artifact,” the shipping costs from Cyprus are a whopping $35 to anywhere in the United States. This is a far cry from the old days when a real illegal antiquity had to be couriered by a specialist who not only knew how to care for the piece, but how to doctor it up to avoid being arrested at customs. The same is true for objects from just about every well-known ancient culture in the world. Chinese, Bulgarian, Egyptian, Peruvian, and Mexican workshops are now producing fakes at a frenetic pace.

I have written previously of James Cuno’s Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over our Ancient Heritage and the ongoing debate over the ownership of antiquities, particularly those antiquities housed far from their origins in the museums of the Western powers. Cuno has published another volume addressing the issues, Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate Over Aniquities, a collection of essays by other art historians arguing in favor of housing these treasures in “Encyclopedic Museums” charged with the stewardship on behalf of all of humankind. Cuno would argue that, for example, artifacts produced by the Hittites belong no more to the Turks, in whose territory those artifacts are found, than they do to the entirety of humanity.

Hugh Eakin reviews both of Cuno’s books, discussing many of the issues I raised in my earlier post. But he also makes the important point that recent moves by U.S. museum directors make many of these difficult questions  far less important as a practical matter, despite the passions inevitable in the conflict between those who claim to be defending their national heritage against those who claim to stand up for the sanctity of art and its preservation.

Last year “the directors of the leading art museums of the United States agreed to limit their acquisitions of antiquities to works that have left their “country of probable modern discovery” before 1970, or that were exported legally after that date.” Eakins points out the importance of this agreement:

[I]n choosing 1970 as a cutoff date-the symbolic year of a UNESCO convention against the illicit circulation of material deemed by particular nations to be their cultural property-the museums have eliminated the possibility of acquiring most of the ancient art available for sale today. In effect, the museum directors have made it clear that, for American museums, collecting antiquities has largely come to an end; and with it the system of private collectors and dealers that has sustained it since the late nineteenth century. (emphasis added)

There are several implications to the end of large-scale collecting of antiquities by U.S. museums. First, many antiquities (most likely looted) are in the hands of wealthy private collectors, precisely the patrons on whom major museums depend for donations. “Now that museums have adopted rules that prevent the acquisition of many ancient objects still in private hands, they must find other ways of retaining that support.”

In addition, countries that have asserted ownership over any art found within their borders have to face the failures of those laws, which primarily have worked to drive the trade in looted antiquities even further underground.

And now we know too that the trade in antiquities is being squeezed by the trade in fakes.

Should museums return antiquities to their countries of origin?

The headline on Stephen Litt’s piece in yesterday’s Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Analysis: Museums often pay the price for looted antiquities,” is misleading.  As Litt explains, it is more the exception than the rule that museums return antiquities to the countries from which those pieces have been looted.  Why?  “[I]f an object was looted, there will be no record of its existence. Many museums, including Cleveland’s, have collected and shown ancient works whose exact origins remain unknown.”

Nonetheless, the Cleveland Museum of Art recently agreed to send 14 objects back to Italy, where they’d been illegally dug up, cleaned, and restored before being put up for sale on a market that eventually lands them in museums around the world.  Litt explains that this agreement is part of a new wave of scrutiny museums are exercising over their collections.  Nonetheless, many consider the museums complicit in activities that are both illegal and immoral.  Cases such as the one involving the Cleveland Museum are the easy ones because there was clear proof the pieces were looted, not just an absence of documentation about where the pieces came from:

To experts such as Ricardo Elia, a Boston University archaeology professor and a close observer of the antiquities trade, such lack of documentation is proof that an object was looted. He estimated that as much as 90 percent of the antiquities purchased in recent decades by American museums are the product of looting.

But Timothy Rub, director of the Cleveland Museum of Art, said that lack of exculpatory evidence about an artwork’s origins doesn’t prove a wrongdoing was committed — or that the work should be relinquished on demand.

“If I’ve inherited as director custody of an object that doesn’t have a provenance before a certain date and somebody says, ‘It’s ours, give it back,’ that’s a pretty tough thing,” he said. “I’ve got to ask you to make a case.”

The difficulty of arguing such cases makes it unlikely that the recent wave of repatriations to Italy will lead to a vast purge of artworks from American museums.

Instead, if the negotiations show anything, it’s that museums, including Cleveland’s, are willing to part with antiquities only when foreign governments provide persuasive evidence connecting the works to recent criminal wrongdoing.

That’s a difficult threshold to reach, and it’s rare. The art bust in Switzerland, for example, documented the precise trail taken by specific objects from the looters who dug them up to the middlemen who cleaned and restored them, provided them with phony ownership histories and put them on the market.

“You may not see another case this dramatic for 20 or 30 years,” Elia said. “They found bags of Polaroid photographs and information from Hecht’s diaries.”

As I wrote in September in connection with the arguments going on over whether pieces like the Elgin Marbles and the Rosetta Stone should be returned to Greece and Egypt, Litt points out that antiquities are big, and illegal business, dominated by organized crime.