RD. JJS/3 LICENSE TO SELL: THE LEGAL TRADE OF ANTIQUITIES IN ISRAEL By MORAG M. KERSEL LUCY CA VENDISH COLLEGE THIS DISSERTATION IS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND JUNE2006 DECLARATION This dissertation is the result of my own work and inCludes nothing, which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. Preliminary results of this research appear in: M.M. Kersel (2005) Archaeology's Well Kept Secret: The Managed Trade in Antiquities. In C. Briault, J. Green and A. Kaldelis (eds.), SOMA 2003: Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of Postgraduate Researchers pp. 79-83. British Archaeological Research Press. This thesis meets all requirements of page length and word count as set f01th by the Department of Archaeology. 11 AUTHOR'S NOTE For the purposes of this work I have used the geographical terms "Near East" "Palestine" "and the "Holy Land" interchangeably throughout this thesis to refer to the tenitory now encompassed by the modem states of Israel, Jordan, and the PA. As much as possible, I have tried to maintain a consistent pattem of transliteration with regards to the spelling of Arabic, Hebrew, and Turkish words. In the case of specific archaeological sites, I have adopted the spelling used by the excavator. I have attempted to use the te1ms provenance (used to indicate the original location and context of an object as well as the history or ownership, a key pmt in the evaluation of an object's value) and provenience (used to indicate the original stratigraphic location and context of an object) consistently throughout this work. BCE and CE are used to designate dates. Unless otherwise stated all images are the author's own photographs and digital 1mages. lll AUTHOR'S NOTE For the purposes of this work I have used the geographical terms "Near East" "Palestine" "and the "Holy Land" interchangeably throughout this thesis to refer to the tenitory now encompassed by the modem states of Israel, Jordan, and the P A. As much as possible, I have tried to maintain a consistent pattem of transliteration with regards to the spelling of Arabic, Hebrew, and Turkish words. In the case of specific archaeological sites, I have adopted the spelling used by the excavator. I have attempted to use the te1ms provenance (used to indicate the original location and context of an object as well as the history or ownership, a key part in the evaluation of an object's value) and provenience (used to indicate the original stratigraphic location and context of an object) consistently throughout this work. BCE and CE are used to designate dates. Unless otherwise stated all images are the author's own photographs and digital Images. lll ABSTRACT. A LICENSE TO SELL: THE LEGAL TRADE OF ANTIQUITIES IN ISRAEL Morag M. Kersel The objective of this study is to introduce reliable data to the protracted debate conceming whether or not legally sanctioned antiquities markets can succeed as a solution to the illicit trade in antiquities- a solution long proffered by the collecting and dealing communities. Using the legal market in Israel as the case study this work examines how this market developed, what effect its legal and illegal aspects have on archaeological site destruction in Israel, Jordan, and the PA, and how these circumstances impact archaeological practice. The current investigation is concemed principally with establishing a connection between demand (the purchase of archaeological a1tifacts) and the looting of archaeological sites. Employing a production - distribution - consumption model of trade, this thesis considers the competing stakeholders (archaeologists, collectors, dealers, government employees, and museum professionals) and their respective claims to the disposition of the cultural heritage. Based on this research, a relationship is established between the looting of sites, thefts from museums and private collections, and the demand for artifacts. Examples 'Such as the case study of a Bar Kokhba coin, and testimony from archaeologists, dealers, and govemment employees clearly illustrate the link between consumer demand for archaeological material and the supply chain supported through the looting of archaeological sites. Qualitative data gathered during the course of this project indicates that with sh·icter laws, greater oversight, closer scrutiny of dealer inventories and registers, policing of archaeological sites under tlueat, more control at border crossings, a more ethical consumer base- one that refuses to purchase unprovenienced artifacts- and a steady influx of chance finds and deacessioned material, a fully monitored legal market may have the potential to succeed as a detenent to looting. Whether or not such utopian conditions could really exist remains to be examined in future research. Collectors and dealers in ancient antiquities favour a legally sanctioned antiquities market as a remedy that will satisfy all parties invested in cultural heritage protection. This proposed solution fmms the primary focus of this research project. IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS So, what is your thesis? Olivia Lyon, aged 3 This thesis is the product of interaction with countless individuals to whom I owe a debt of gratitude, and it is a pleasure to be able to acknowledge them here. I would like to start by thanking Professor Colin Renfrew and Dr. Neil Brodie for their time and commitment to this project. While in the Depatiment of Archaeology I was privileged to be associated with the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre [IARC] . Without the time and resources of the IARC fellows and staff (Neil Brodie, Jenny Doole, Colin Renfrew, and Peter Watson) my research would not have progressed to this stage. It was also a rare treat to have a fellow PhD student studying a similar topic, with whom I could consult and commiserate. I thank Gm·don Lobay for many fmitful discussions and much helpful advice. I doubt I would have finished without Gm·don and Starbucks©. Many people associated with both the Department of Archaeology and the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at the University of Cambridge facilitated the completion of this thesis. For logistical assistance I thank Natasha Mattindale, Debora,h Pan, Denise Schreve, Casey Synge, and Jane Woods. For academic support and intellectually stimulating discussions on vmious aspects of my research I am indebted to Charlotte Andrews, John Carman, Mary-Cate Garden, Gm·don Lobay, Sarah Parcak, Dave Robinson, Krish Seetah, Hilary Soderland, Marie Louise Stig S0renson, Julie-Ann Vickers, and StefWynne-Jones. The following institutions provided financial suppmt which made my research possible: the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; the Cambridge Commonwealth Tmsts; the P.E.O. Intemational Scholar Awards; and the An1erican Friends of Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge. My year of field work in Israel, Jordan, and Palestine was generously suppmted by funding through the Tweedie Exploration Foundation, the University of Edinburgh; the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jemsalem; the Palestinian American Research Center (PARC); the Ridgeway-Venn Travel Studentship, University of Cambtidge; and a Dorothy Ganod Award of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Cambridge. V I will never be able to adequately express my thanks to those individuals who patiicipated in my research by agreeing to be interviewed. In order to preserve anonymity and confidentiality no individuals were explicitly named, but I greatly appreciate their faith in my research. None of this could have been accomplished without the kindness and generosity of the various stakeholders in Israel, Jordan, and the P A. I was welcomed into homes, businesses, archaeological sites, and govemment offices, offered endless cups of tea and coffee, and given answers to my innumerable questions. Most participants met my often na'ive and sometimes offensive questions with good humour and unexpected responses. In patiicular I would like to thank the various representatives of the Israel Antiquities Authority, the Jordanian Depatiment of Antiquities, and the Palestinian National Authority Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities for supp01ting and encouraging my research at every opp01tunity. My year in the Middle East was facilitated and enhanced by my association with the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research. The director, Sy Gitin and the support staff at the Albright made my year academically fruitful and an enjoyable living experience. Many thanks go to Hisham M'Farreh and Nadia Bandak for their support and friendship over the years. Discussions and diversions with the 2003-2004 Albright Fellows was an ineplaceable experience. I learned much from Tzvi Abusch, Jill Baker, Scott Bucking, Susan Cohen, Tim Fries, Nic Hudson, the Laniak family, Ed Maher, S. Becky Matiin, Laura Mazow, Yorke Rowan, Edna Sachar, Benjamin Saidel, Eveline van der Steen, and Sam Wolff. I thank them all for their camaraderie. Adel Yahya of the Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange is the most genial of hosts and he graciously shepherded me around vatious patis of Palestine all to the benefit of my research. For many years the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of the Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem has been a second home during my visits to the area. Through my associations with HUC I came to the topic of this thesis . I would like to take this opp01tunity to thank the various individuals associated with HUC who have steadfastly supported my research over the many years: Professor A vraham Biran, Rachel Ben Dov, Gila Cook, Yuval Gadot, Malka Herskovitz, Hanni Hirsch, David Ilan, Dalia Packman, and Yifat Thareani-Sussely. VI I will never be able to adequately express my thanks to those individuals who pa1ticipated in my research by agreeing to be interviewed. In order to preserve anonymity and confidentiality no individuals were explicitly named, but I greatly appreciate their faith in my research. None of this could have been accomplished without the kindness and generosity of the various stakeholders in Israel, Jordan, and the P A. I was welcomed into homes, businesses, archaeological sites, and govemment offices, offered endless cups of tea and coffee, and given answers to my innumerable questions. Most participants met my often na"ive and sometimes offensive questions with good humour and unexpected responses. In pmticular I would like to thank the various representatives of the Israel Antiquities Authority, the Jordanian Depa1tment of Antiquities, and the Palestinian National Authority Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities for suppmting and encouraging my research at every oppmtunity. My year in the Middle East was facilitated and enhanced by my association with the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research. The director, Sy Gitin and the support staff at the Albright made my year academically fmitful and an enjoyable living experience. Many thanks go to Hisham M'Farreh and Nadia Bandak for their suppmt and friendship over the years. Discussions and diversions with the 2003-2004 Albright Fellows was an ineplaceable experience. I leamed much from Tzvi Abusch, Jill Baker, Scott Bucking, Susan Cohen, Tim Fries, Nic Hudson, the Laniak family, Ed Maher, S. Becky Ma1tin, Laura Mazow, Yorke Rowan, Edna Sachar, Benjamin Saidel, Eveline van der Steen, and Sam Wolff. I thank them all for their camarade1ie. Adel Yahya ofthe Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange is the most genial of hosts and he graciously shepherded me around various parts of Palestine all to the benefit of my research. For many years the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of the Hebrew Union College in Jemsalem has been a second home during my visits to the area. Through my associations with HUC I came to the topic of this thesis. I would like to take this oppmtunity to thank the various individuals associated with HUC who have steadfastly supported my research over the many years: Professor A vraham Biran, Rachel Ben Dov, Gila Cook, Yuval Gadot, Malka Herskovitz, Hanni Hirsch, David Ilan, Dalia Packman, and Yifat Thareani-Sussely. Vl Much of the background knowledge and practical applications of this research was gained whilst I was employed as a contactor with the U.S. Department of State. I would like to thank my colleagues for their supp011 and encouragement: Janet Bishop, Christina Luke, Bonnie Magness-Gardiner, Maria Papageorge Kouroupas, Joanna Snearly, and Carol Wakefield. James Reap and Mel Hill ofthe University of Georgia's Historic Preservation program provided much inf01mation and inspiration, which often guides my cunent research. This work benefited greatly from my interaction with social scientists and practitioners in the field of ethnography and social anthropology. I would like to thank Efrat Ben Ze'ev, Brendan Burchell, Paolo Filippucci, Laura Jeffery, Daniel Joyce, and Patricia Neu all of whom graciously shared their time and knowledge. I would especially like to acknowledge an often overlooked group essential to any academic research; librarians and archivists. Without the assistance of the people who work at the University Library Cambridge; Lucy Cavendish College Library; the Oriental Studies Library, Cambridge; Squier Law Library, Cambridge; The Palestine Exploration Fund Archives; the Albright Institute Library; The Abramov Library at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Jemsalem; The Library of Archaeology of the Hebrew University; The Archives of Israel Antiquities Authority; Birzeit University Law Centre, Ramallah; and The Middle East Center Archive of St. Antony's College, Oxford, this thesis would be woefully inadequate. Lucy Cavendish College has been an oasis of calm in a very hectic world. The President, Fellows, and staff have been incredibly supportive of my research and I would like to take the time to acknowledge how much I appreciated tlie caring, committed atmosphere that is Lucy. My time at Lucy was enriched by a number of fellow 'mature Lucy ladies', all of who provided companionship and laughter over many lunches, formal halls, and SU meetings. I would like to thank, Isabella Alexander, Jacqui Capuzzo, Faye Chalcraff, Mary-Anne Coates, Gem Duncan, Emma James, Katy Molyneux, Lou (King) Pye, M01·gan Richards, Debra Spencer, Linda Stone, and Zara White for many moments of much hilarity. I would be remiss not to thank Janelle Ward and Scott Habe1man, both of whom have taken me under their wings. Life without them would have been (and would be) much lonelier and my work much less satisfying. Vll I have been a student on and off for many years and a lot of friends and family have supported me tlu·oughout my endeavours. I cannot possibly express my gratitude to the numerous individuals but I am immensely grateful. I would especially like to thank the Blake D. Lyon charitable foundation for financial supp01i in the early stages of the PhD. Blake, Fiona, Jackie, Malcolm, Mhairi, Olivia, and Robeti often provided escape mechanisms when I needed to get away from my research and return to "normal life". I am indebted to them and their unwavering support, unending kindness, and ability always to make me laugh. It is Olivia's question "So, what is your thesis?" that guides my research. I am pmiicularly thankful for all of the new little people that have come into my life in the last few years. Their hugs, laughter, and companionship remind me often of what is imp01iant and what is not. I thank Ana, Annalise, Benjamin, Cofman, Eli, Ella, Finn, Fiona, Helena, Henry, Kiera, Malcolm, Nic, Nina, Noah, Olivia, Owen, Regina, Rosemary, Sammy, and Sean-pie and I hope that there may be an archaeologist or two amongst them. My patiner in anti-crime, Clu·istina Luke, has been a constant source of inspiration and guidance. Early in my research she pointed out a fundamental flaw, which I rectified and have hopefully since overcome. I cannot thank her enough for her encouragement, for-her suggestions, and for the passionate way in which she approaches cultural heritage protection (and for the excellent beer, brewed by her brother Derek). Her insightful comments on earlier drafts of chapters have improved the final product immensely. I hope that a friendship that began in the shadow of 9/11 will continue to flourish as we look for strategies to protect the archaeological landscape for the future. My debts to Y orke Rowan go beyond thanks for his reading of, and comments on, countless versions of what resulted in this thesis. It is sometimes difficult to discem which ideas are my own and which are his. His support of my research, my move to England, and his continual good humour has sustained me during trying times. Now that we are both finished with our educational pursuits we may even get to live in the same continent and maybe even the same city. To all those who influenced my work and whom I have forgotten to mention by name, I offer my sincere gratitude and apologies. Despite my indebtedness to others, responsibility for all errors is mine alone. V111 Finally, I would like to dedicate this work to two women of great courage and conviction- Sara Clark and Omit Ilan. Both were generous with their camaraderie, hospitality, knowledge, spirit, and time. Both would have laughed at some of this research. This world is less rich without them. DECLARATION PAGE AUTHOR'S NOTE ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF MAPS LIST OF APPENDICES GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE PROBLEM OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE DESTRUCTION 11. A FREE-MARKET IN ANTIQUITIES Ill. PRESERVATIONISTS IV. CULTURAL HERITAGE SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT V. ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY I. GAINING ACCESS 11. THE ACTIVE INTERVIEW Ill. ETHICAL DILEMMAS IV. CONCLUSION CHAPTER 3 PRODUCTION I. A HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE ACQUISITION OF ARTIFACTS IN THE REGION 11. MEANS OF PRODUCTION 11 lll IV V X Xll XIV XV XVI 1 6 7 15 19 21 23 26 33 37 39 41 43 54 CHAPTER 4 DISTRIBUTION 72 I. THE LEGAL BACKGROUND OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATER1AL 72 11. THE ANTIQUITIES SHOP 99 CHAPTER 5 CONSUMPTION 109 I. WHY- WHY DO PEOPLE COLLECT NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL 11. m. IV. ARTIFACTS WHO -WHO COLLECTS NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTIFACTS HOW- THE PROCESS OF COLLECTING WHAT- THE IMPACT OF CONSUMPTION ON THE LEGAL MARKET CHAPTER 6 MECHANISM I. A MODEL FOR THE TRADE IN ANTIQUITIES 11. CASE STUDY: THE PATHWAY OF A COIN 110 116 141 148 152 153 160 CHAPTER 7 DATA ANALYSIS I. REINTRODUCTION TO THE METHODOLOGY Il. DEFINING THE .STAKEHOLDERS Ill. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES IV. CONCLUSION CHAPTER 8 FUTURE DIRECTIONS I. DEMAND Il. FUTURE LEGAL AND MARKET INVESTIGATIONS Ill. LOOTING IV. CONCLUSIONS CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSION I. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Il. CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES VITA 168 169 170 182 199 201 202 214 215 227 229 229 233 236 340 341 Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5 Figure 5.6 Figure 5.7 Figure 5.8 Figure 5.9 Figure 5.10 Figure 5.11 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3 LIST OF FIGURES Antiquities Shop, King David Street, West Jerusalem, Israel Information Gathering Coffee Session Characteristics of Researchers and Participants (after deMarrais 2003) The Movement of Archaeological Material (after Coe 1993) Products from Hebron replica factory Israeli and P A looting pyramid (after Ganor 2003) Broken pottery in looters' back diti pile, Modi'in. Make-shift homes of Palestinian construction workers, Modi' in. Palestinian worker in Modi ' in. New construction visible in the background Looter's tunnel with ladder, Modi'in. Legal Chronology of the Trade in Antiquities General Allenby entering Jerusalem Types of Antiquities Shops Ati Gallery Type of Antiquities Shop Tourist Type of Antiquities Shop Variety of material available for sale in a licensed shop Cabinet of Curiosity Type of Antiquities Shop Museum Type of Antiquities Shop Antiquities Shop in the Tel Aviv Hilton Examples of tourist keepsakes Visitors to the Holy Land (after Cohen 1988 and Smith 1977) IAA License to sell antiquities Inexpensive archaeological material for sale in Jerusalem's Old City Moshe Dayan examining a pot at Baidun Antiquities Shop Anthropomorphic Clay Coffin Lid The Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem Regional Distribution ofWhite-Levy Grants (1997- present) LMLK Seal The Near Eastern Artifact Continuum Tourists Shopping in the Old City, Jerusalem Market flow of the Trade in Antiquities Pathway of a Coin from Hebron to New York City Bar Kokhba Tetradrachm Stakeholder Groups Response Rate Stakeholders in the Production- Distribution- Consumption Model Testimonial of William G. Dever Xll Figure 7.4 Figure 7.5 Figure 7.6 Figure 7.7 Figure 8.1 Figure 8.2 Figure 8.3 Figure 8.4 Figure 8.5 Figure 8.6 Figure 8.7 Figure 8.8 IAA Organizational Chart Stakeholder Response - The Link Between Demand and Looting Stakeholder Response- Should A Legal Trade in Antiquities Exist? Stakeholder Response - Should the IAA Sell Sherds? Rewarding the Looter Diagram SAFE Webpage- Advocacy Campaign Meeting of Community Leaders and Cultural Heritage Expelis Before and After Images of the Restoration at el-Jib Adel Yahya, director of PACE Leading a Tour at el-Jib Looted Byzantine Burial Chamber, el-Jib CultureBank, Mali Types of Altifacts in the CultureBank (after Deubel and Baro 2002) Xlll I Map 1.1 Map 3.1 Map 3.2 Map 3.3 Map 3.4 Map 4.1 Map 4.2 Map 4.3 Map 7.1 Map 8.1 LIST OF MAPS Study Area- Israel, Jordan, and the PA (Gaza Strip and the West Bank) Extent of the Ottoman Empire in 1884 Map of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, 1916 Map of the general study area Oslo II Map Outlining Areas A, B, and C Map of Palestine under the British Mandate Map of 1948 Statehood Map of Old City Antiquities Shops Map of Antiquities Shop Locations in Israel Map of the biblical sites of Bethel (Beitin) and Gibeon ( el-Jib) · xiv LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 The Antiquities Law 5738-1978 (Israel) APPENDIX 2 List of Interviewees and Dates APPENDIX 3 The Interview Guide- English APPENDIX 4 The Interview Guide- Arabic APPENDIX 5 Antiquities Ordinance No. 51, 1929 (Palestine) APPENDIX 6 Antiquities Rules, 1930 (Palestine) APPENDIX 7 Antiquities Authority Law 5749-1989 (Israel) APPENDIX 8 5111 Draft Law Cultural and Natural Heritage Law, 2003 (the PA) APPENDIX 9 Haaretz newspaper article on IAA Proposal to Sell Sherds XV GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS The 1954 Hague Convention The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Prope11y in the Event of Anned Conflict 1970 UNESCO Convention 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Impm1, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Prope11y 1884 Law 1999 Dealer Code AAA AAM AAMD ACCP AlA AL 1978 AO 1929 AR 1930 Al·chaeologically-rich ASOR ATADA BAR BCE CE CPIA Ottoman Antiquities Law of 1884 Intemational Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property, 1999 American Anthropological Association American Association of Museums Association of Al1 Museum Directors American Council for Cultural Policy Al·chaeological Institute of America Antiquities Law 5738-1978 (Israel) Antiquities Ordinance No. 51, 1929 Antiquities Rules of 1930 Those nations with a rich heritage in antiquities. They are also refened to as source nations, art-rich nations, nations of origin, supply nations. American Schools of Oriental Research Antique T1ibal Alt Dealers Association Biblical Archaeological Review Before the Common Era Common Era Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act XVl DOA DOA Jordan The Getty JFA IAA lAD AA IARC ICAHM ICOM ICOMOS IDAM Market NAGPRA NAPA NGO OED ThePA PADOA PAM Department of Antiquities Department of Antiquities, Jordan The J. Paul Getty Tmst (includes the Getty Villa, Malibu and the Getty Center, Los Angeles) Journal of Field Archaeology Israel Antiquities Authority Intemational Association of Dealers in Ancient Art Illicit Antiquities Research Centre Intemational Committee of Archaeological Heritage Management (a scientific committee ofiCOMOS) Intemational Council of Museums Intemational Council of Monuments and Sites Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, the precursor to the cunent IAA Nations that have a thriving trade in impmted mtifacts are known as market nations, att-poor nations, purchaser nations, and collector nations. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act National Association for the Practice of Anthropology Non-Govemmental Organization Oxford English Dictionary The Palestinian Autonomous region (also refened to as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; the occupied territories); Palestine Palestinian Depmtment of Antiquities, Ministry of Tourism and Culture Palestine Archaeological Museum (the Rockefeller) XVll PEF Provenance Provenience § SAA SAFE SAIG The Met UK UN UNESCO UNIDROIT us Palestine Exploration Fund (a te1m most often used by art historians) is used to indicate the original archaeological context of an object as well as the history of ownership, a key pati in the evaluation of an object's value. (a tetm most often used by anthropologists and archaeologists) is used to indicate the original stratigraphic location and archaeological context of an object. Section Society for American Archaeology Saving Antiquities For Everyone Student Affairs Interest Group of the AlA The Metropolitan Museum of Ati, New York City The United Kingdom United Nations United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Intemational Institute for the Unification of Private Law L'Institut international pour !'unification du droit prive The United States XV111 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION "The legally sanctioned antiquities market in Israel stimulates the looting of archaeological sites and the illegal trade in the occupied tenitories where many ofthe archaeological sites are located." (Taha 2002: 268) In October of 2002, it was announced that an Aramaic inscription on nondescript limestone box, looted from a cave in Jerusalem and held in the private collection of long- time collector Oded Golan, might be the earliest known archaeological references to Jesus (Gugliotta 2002, Legon 2002, Wilford 2002) 1• As news of the Aramaic inscription was released, the details of the ossuary's2 archaeological context were sketchy at best, calling into question the authenticity of the find for many scholars. The genuineness of the ossuary as an ancient artifact is not in dispute but the inscription on it, refetTing to James the son of Joseph and brother of Jesus, has been repeatedly questioned. At the initial press conference3 announcing the existence of the inscribed ossuary, Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeological Review [BAR), stated that the owner purchased the ossuary in the early 1990s from an antiquities dealer in Jerusalem's Old City for ..._ between US $200 and US $700. Later it was claimed that the piece was purchased in the 1970s for around US $200. The date of purchase is central to determining ownership. If in fact the ossuary was acquired in the early 1990s- just fifteen years ago- without proper documentation, it belongs to the State of Israel rather than Golan. The Israeli Antiquities Law 5738-1978 [AL 1978] establishes a national patrimony law, which vests 1 A panel of experts convened by the Israel Antiquities Authority declared the ossuary inscription a fake (see Silberman and Goren 2003). Debate over the authenticity of the insc1iption continues today. The panel's academic credibility and the scientific analyses have both been questioned repeatedly in the pages of BAR (coverage in every issue from January 2003 until the present in a section entitled, Update: Finds or Fakes). For further discussions see Goren et al. 2005 ; Rollston 2003 and 2004. 2 An ossuary is a repository for bones. 3 The announcement was made in anticipation of the opening of a blockbuster exhibition at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto showcasing the James Ossuary. The presentation of the ossuary was orchestrated to coincide with the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion for maximum effect and media exposure. For fmiher infmmation on the exhibition see and Gatehouse 2005 . 1 among other things vests ownership of cultural heritage, found after the benchmark date of 1978, in the State oflsrael4. In Israel it is legal to buy and sell artifacts from collections established before the AL 1978 (see Figure 1.1); after that date, all newly discovered antiquities are property of Figure 1.1 Antiquities Shop on King David Street, West Jerusalem, Israel. the state5. When the purchaser of the ossuary enquired about provenience6 the dealer stated that it came from Silwan, a Jerusalem neighbourhood dotted with tombs from the first century CE (Legon 2002). "This could be something genuinely important, but we can never know for certain," said P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., professor of Biblical and Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins University. "Not knowing the context of where the ossuary was found compromises anything we might say, so doubts are going to persist" (Wilford 2002). The relevance of the "James Ossuary" to this PhD research is not 4 Chapter 2 (a) State ownership of antiquities: When an antiquity is discovered or found in Israel after the coming into force of this Law, it shall within boundaries fixed by the Director become the property of the State (Antiquities Law 5738-1978 Chapter two). See Appendix 1 for the full text of the Antiquities Law of 1978 (Israel). 5 Antiquities Law 5738-1978 Chapter two. 6 The provenance (a term most often used by art historians) of an object includes the original find spot and context of an object as well as the history of ownership, a key part in the evaluation of an object's value. Provenience (most often used by anthropologists and archaeologists) is a term used to mean the original find spot and archaeological context of an object. 2 whether the box is the earliest tangible evidence of Jesus of Nazareth - who until this point we know only through literary texts- but the destructive influence that the looting of archaeological sites and the subsequent trade in antiquities, whether legal or illegal, has on our collective knowledge of the past. Because the ossuary was purchased on the market we will never know its true archaeological context, or whether there were associated finds that would support the claims of authenticity and refute the allegations of forgery. For many scholars the debate will never be settled in a satisfactory manner. This thesis is not about the "James Ossuary", forgeries, or debates concerning the veracity of biblical narratives, but these and similar issues arise in the examination of the legal trade in antiquities and the attendant loss of knowledge through the destruction of archaeological sites in order to supply the demand for antiquities. Map 1.1 Study Area Med terranean Sea EG YPt • 1., > . ISRAEL \ \ ' ~ i"l, .· \ · \ . \ \ JORDAN 36. Study Area including Jordan, Israel and the PA (Gaza Strip and the West Bank) (Image from ). 32. The objective of this study is to introduce reliable data to the protracted debate concerning whether or not legally sanctioned antiquities markets can succeed as a 3 soltJtion to the illicit trade in antiquities- a solution long proffered by the collecting and dealing communities7 . Using the legal market in Israel as the case study this work examines how this market developed, what effect its legal and illegal aspects have on archaeological site destruction, and how these circumstances impact archaeological practice (see Map 1.1 for study area). The cmTent study is concemed especially with ( establishing a connection between demand (the consumption of archaeological artifacts) and the looting of archaeological sites. ·Since the promulgation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property [the 1970 UNESCO Convention], the standard contribution to the ' growing intemational cultural heritage dialogue has focused on the illicit trade in antiquities and on measures to control or eliminate that trade. Primarily there are three competing positions in the intemational cultural heritage protection milieu: one, typically held among anthropologists, archaeologists, and ethnographers places primary emphasis on the contextual inf01mation associated with cultmal objects, highlighting the acquisition of inf01mation about the human past through relationships and proper scientific documentation (Brodie 2003). 8 This position has been forcefully argued by Richard Handler (1992), who maintains that in order to have meaning, objects must be sunounded by other objects, by words, by human activity. A second discourse generally held among archaeologically-rich9 nations (those providing the artifacts), is preservationist and emphasises the relationship between cultural objects and national identity, culture, and history. 10 The third viewpoint characteristically held by market nations (those buying the artifacts) is supported by the intemational art and antiquities h·ade, which de-emphasises nationalism and is critical of what they refer to as retentionism. 11 This stance often eo-opts the position of UNESCO and other intemational 7 See (Bator 1983; Bisheh 200 I; Borodkin 1995; Eisenberg 1994; Marks 1995; Menyman 1995 and 2005; Murphy 1995; Pearlstein 1996; and Shanks 2001 ). 8 For purposes of this thesis this group has been labelled as contextualists . 9 Nations with a 1ich helitage in antiquities are known as source nations, a1i-rich nations, nations of 01igin , supply nations or archaeologically-rich nations . Nations that have a th1iving trade in imp01ied miifacts are known as market nations, a1i-poor nations, purchaser nations, and collector nations. For purposes of this study the te1ms market and archaeologically-1ich will be used (Bengs 1996; Borodkin 1995). 10 This supp01iers of this position are often referred to as cultural nationalists 11 See footnote 13 for fmiher discussion of the term free-market use to desc1ibe those who supp01i this position. 4 organisations, which underscores humanity's common interest in its artistic achieveme~ts and stresses that cultural objects, should be free to circulate for "scientific, cultural and educational purposes" in order to "enrich the cultural lives of all people" 12 . If we begin with the basic premise that all tlu·ee ideologies are legitimate and that each discourse expresses a core interest of a particular group, there seems little hope for reconciling these disparate viewpoints. Each perspective suggests its own solutions to the illicit trade in antiquities, some supported by evidence and some without factual basis. This research project is an examination of the solution presented by the third discourse, espoused by the cultural internationalists 13 as they are refened to by Menyman ( 1996, 2005), that argues for a legally sanctioned market in antiquities as a remedy that satisfies all parties in the cultural heritage protection debate. However, as with most solutions it is neither straightf01ward nor does it answer all objections. The point of departure for this debate is Israel. In creating a national patrimony (ownership) law 14 (AL 1978) Israel established a system of licensed antiquities dealers legally permitted to sell and subsequently exp01t 12 Quoting directly from the Preamble of the 1970 UNESCO Convention . 13 After much discussion between Colin Renfi·ew, Neil Brodie and the author, it was concluded that the term "cultural internationalist" as employed by Merryman and those who support his position, is a misnomer. Instead, the te 1m free-market will be used, which in reality is what their ·position supp01is. The idea of the fi·ee-market, where goods may circulate without national restrictions and prohibitions, is based on free competition (Jayme 2005). Organisations like UNESCO, ICOM and the IARC are those who are truly internationalist in stance, attempting to balance the rights of indigenous populations to determine the disposition of their cultural heritage, with the protection of cultural he1itage for the bette1ment of mankind. The te1m intemationalist conjures up positive connotations, providing access to all. Rather than being intemationalist in approach the free-market position , in this context, advocates for the unfettered movement of culturalmate1ial in the marketplace- those who can afford to purchase the mtifacts are allowed access. 14 The definition of pah·imony from the Latin patrimonium, from pair-, pater father, is property inhe1ited from one's father or passed down from one's ancestors; an inheritance (OED). Cultural pat1imony often implies that an mtifact is of significance to a pa1iicular civilization and is the inalienable bi1ihright of its descendants (Borodkin 1995). National cultural patrimony laws are those laws, which vest the protection and disposition of the cultural legacy of a group in that nation by proscribing the unauth01ised excavation of archaeological sites, the exp01i of antiquities, or both (Brodie 2005: I 051 ). Synonyms for cultural patrimony include cultural prope1iy, antiquities, cultural he1itage, and archaeological material. These te1ms are often used interchangeably but the use of a specific te1m can also denote a pmiicular political stance. There are no universally accepted definitions of cultural he1itage and many of the definitions used in local, national, and intemationallegal conventions are divergent and conh·adictory. The reference to cultural heritage in this work embodies some feature of a group's cultural identity illustrating the group's customs, practices or beliefs . Cultural heritage helps to foster and to reinforce the shared values of the group (see Prott and O'Keefe 1989: 23-24). And cultural heritage should be understood in its original context in order to fully comprehend its meanings and associations. Under some definitions, cultural he1itage can be anything from the intangible to the tangible but for present purposes this work will focus on mainly archaeological artifacts, and will endeavour to use the te1m cultural heritage consistently throughout this work. 5 antiquities derived from collections pre-dating the law- a unique feature of this type of legislation 15 . Some contend that the existence of the licensed market in Israel stimulates the looting of archaeologi'cal sites and the illegal trade of antiquities in the Palestinian Autonomous region [the PA] where many of the archaeological sites are situated (Abu El-Haj 2001, El Hafi 2004, Glock 1995, Taha 2002). The Israeli market may also encourage looting in countries in close proximity to the legal market- Iraq, Jordan, and Syria as well as in Israel. As pati of this research study the veracity of these contentions is investigated. The introduction - Chapter 1 -provides a brief overview of the fundamental question of this research: Does the legal market for antiquities contribute to archaeological site destruction or does it lessen the problem of looting? This study begins by briefly examining the problem of archaeological site destmction. The focus then turns to the competing voices in the debate over "access"16 to cultural heritage, included is an examination of the dispute between those who advocate for a free-market in cultural material as a way to combat the looting of archaeological sites and those preservationists who oppose such a venture stating instead that the market contributes to looting. I. THE PROBLEM OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE DESTRUCTION Recent studies (Atwood 2004, Bogdanos 2005c, Brodie, Doole, and Renfrew 2001, Brodie, Doole, and Watson 2000, Brodie et al. fmihcoming, Gilgan 2001, Hollowell-Zimmer 2004, Kersel2005, Lafont 2004, O'Keefe 1997, Roosevelt and Luke fmihcoming, Smith 2005, Thoden van Velzen 1996) have documented archaeological site destmction throughout the world. Whatever the motivating factors 17 are behind looting, it occurs. Concomitantly, valuable knowledge is lost as a result of the looting. Everyone in 15 The national pahimony legislation of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and many counhies in Central and South Ametica expressly forbids the legal or illegal exportation of their cultural hetitage outside of their national boundaries . However, in some nations (Greece and Peru amongst others) this type oflegislation allows for an intemal trade of cultural items, whereby local inhabitants can legally purchase at1ifacts but nothing can be expmied outside of the countJ·y legally. In the case of Greece this caveat to banning the trade in antiquities was established to protect chance finds and to present a legal altemative to illegal expot1 (see Brodie 2005 for fmiher discussion of the intemal market in Greece). 16 Access is defined as ownership and disposition of the cultural hetitage of a nation. 17 See Chapter 3 for a discussion of potential factors that might motivate people to loot in the area under study. 6 the cultural heritage debate 18 agrees: the looting of archaeological sites is devastating to our collective understanding of the past. What participants do not agree upon however is why people loot, what impact the legal market has on archaeological site destruction, and what can be done to combat the pillaging of sites. For those who advocate a free-market approach (Merryman's cultural internationalists) a legal market in antiquities is the only answer to looting. II. A FREE-MARKET IN ANTIQUITIES [T]he interchange of cultural prope1iy among nations for scientific, cultural and educational purposes increases the knowledge of the civilization of Man, enriches the cultural life of all peoples and insures mutual respect and appreciation among nations. (1970 UNESCO Convention pmbl.) And the 1976 UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the International Exchange of Cultural Prope1iy includes the following language: [T]he circulation of cultural property ... is a powerful means of promoting mutual understanding and appreciation among nations . . . [A] systematic policy of exchanges among cultural institutions, by which each would pmi with its surplus items in return for objects that it lacked, would not only be enriching to all parties but would also lead to a better use of the international-community's cultural heritage which is the sum of all the national heritages. (1976 UNESCO Recommendation) With statements such as these there have been conflicting interpretations as to whether the international effmts of organisations like UNESCO support an active international movement in cultural objects. In some instances movement and circulation has been broadly interpreted to mean trade (sale) of material. Each of these statements needs to be considered in the context of the period in which they were drafted - the 1960s and 1970s. Early work by Coggins (1969, 1972) and Meyer (1973) repmied on the staggering rates of looting of archaeological sites and the unregulated movement of antiquities. In the initial stages of drafting the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the 1976 UNESCO Recommendation, the framers were not solely focused on eliminating the 18 The debate under consideration here is whether or not a legal market lessens the looting of archaeological resources . 7 circulation or interchange of cultural material, but were concentrating on the loss of cultural heritage through archaeological site destmction as a result of looting to meet the demand for archaeological material. This then raises the question of whether the framers would have encouraged a sale of material or long-te1m loans as a means of combating the looting of archaeological sites, the position espoused by the free-market approach. We must also therefore examine, with a similarly critical eye the language of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Almed Conflict [1954 Hague Convention]. The 1954 Hague Convention, explicitly speaks of "the cultural heritage of all mankind," emphasizing that there is an international interest in cultural objects, an interest that is separate and distinguishable from national interests (Merryman 1996). In principle, these statements show agreement that the intemational movement of cultural objects, rather than something to be discouraged or grudgingly tolerated, serves desirable ends and should be encouraged (Bator 1983: 30-31 ). Despite the way in which the collecting and dealing community employs these examples, the original intent of these recommendations was not to promote commercial enterprise. The aim instead was the endorsement of educational exchanges between governments through a public fomm (museums and academic institutions).This could be best summated as the intemational access to knowledge through the exchange of cultural material between countries. In their invocation that the various UNESCO Conventions are inherently free- market in stance (MeiTyman 2005), dealers and collectors have developed a proposal to save both their livelihoods and the cultural heritage of mankind- that of a legal trade in antiquities- something they claim satisfies all parties in the debate. Many antiquities dealers would prefer to operate legally and have their trade function respectably like the rest of the ati market by recycling old collections, and buying up newly and legally available material. This point has been recently contextualised in the work of Mackenzie (2005a: 262): "Most antiquities dealers, collectors and museums do not enter the field because they have a burning desire to perform illegal or unethical acts". Rather, Mackenzie (2005a) contends, they are at times victims of circumstance and get drawn into the illegal aspects of the trade because the mechanisms to commit wrongdoing are intrinsic to the cuiTent market for antiquities. 8 A. Ethical Dealers? In order to standardise an increasing! y vibrant and mysterious trade, in 1999 UNESCO enacted the Intemational Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property [the 1999 Dealer Code]. The impetus behind the establishment of a recognised dealer code was the thought to regulate the ethical dilemmas faced by dealers on a continual basis. By subscribing to the basic tenets of the 1999 Dealer Code, dealers agree to "not impoti, expmi, or transfer the ownership of this propetiy when they have reasonable cause to believe it has been stolen, illegally alienated, clandestinely excavated or illegally expmied" (Atiicle 1). However, the dealing community did not wholeheatiedly embrace the UNESCO dealer code as primarily non-dealers drafted it. Instead they ascribe to their own sets of ethical guidelines associated with each professional organisation 19 some of which include the Antique Tribal Art Dealers Association (ATADA)20, the Ati Dealers Association of America (ADAA/ 1, and the Intemational Association of Dealers in Ancient Ati (IADAA)22 .23 Underlying the ethical statements of each of these dealer organisations is the right to trade in cultural objects and the desire to do so freely in a self-regulating market. "The members of the IADAA undetiake to the best oftheir ability to make their purchases in good faith." ..._ (IADAA Ethical Code #1) "All merchandise displayed for sale by a member in a show or fair or a store open to the public shall bear a tag clearly stating the price of the item. Old price tags showing prices that are no longer in effect shall be removed, or shall contain a clear indication that such price has been superseded. Items on display that are not for sale shall have that fact clearly indicated." (ATADA Atiicle X, Section 1) 19 See the American Council for Cultural Policy (ACCP) website at for links to the ethical practices and policies of the vmious organisations and rimseums associated with the trade in cultural hetitage. 20 h ttp :/ /www .atada.org/ 21 http://www .cinoa.org/index.cfm?Lang=EN 22 ° d www.ta aa .org 23 Of the thirty-five dealers interviewed for this research , only one is a member of the lAD AA, meaning that the other thit1y-four dealers are not accountable to any professional ethical standards, just those of the IAA and the licensing scheme, which are legal rather than ethical. 9 The dealing and collecting community claim to see themselves as caretakers of the global cultural heritage- their position is that the market saves antiquities for future generations (Ede 1996, Mackenzie 2005). B. A Managed Market? In his atiicle "Prospects for a Managed Ati Market," Pearlstein (1996: 125) suggests that a discussion of a managed ati market must begin with two basic principles: "The first is that international cultural exchange is inherently desirable and that a legitimate international market for cultural propetiy should exist as a medium for that exchange. The second is that many, if not most antiquities are redundant or otherwise lack special archaeological, historical, or cultural significance to their source nations." [Emphasis mine] What follows is an examination of each premise and the counter arguments made by those opposing the legal trade in antiquities. In general, the creation of a managed market in antiquities would require most archaeologically-rich nations to refmm their cultural heritage practices24 to allow for the movement of all antiquities except those with a significant link to the culture or history of the exporting nation25 . i) International Cultural Exchange The free-market definition of international cultural exchange is not what most stakeholders think of when considering this concept. Under the Oxford English Dictionary [OED] definition, an exchange is "the action, or an act, ofreciprocal giving and receiving". In the free-market position intemational cultural exchange is primarily a one-way movement of material from archaeologically-rich nations to those in possession of the financial resources to purchase the material (either nationally or intemationally). This is not what UNESCO or other organisations or individuals26 have in mind when they proffer the intemational exchange of cultural material, which usually engenders both shoti-tetm loans and long-te1m loans between nations where both benefit equally from 24 This has been interpreted as ref01ming their expot1, and national patlimony laws to allow for the intemational movement of cultural objects in the free-market arena. 25 Questions of who decides what is significant remain vague. The Taliban did not feel that the Bamiyan Buddhas were significant to the cultural hetitage of Afghanistan and thus allowed for their destruction to occur. 26 See Chapter 7 for fmther discussion of long-term loans to institutions with educational mandates . 10 the movement of the archaeological mtifacts. The intemational exchange of free-market proponertts is primarily a flow of objects from less-developed nations to collectors usually with a much higher per capita income. And the exchange is usually financial, not intellectual. In response to this one-way movement many countries enact legislation in the attempt to protect their cultural he1itage. Years of expe1ience with the various legal and illegal elements of the trade led dealers to a standpoint in favour of an intemational trade in cultural material. This position finds its basis in the belief that what they consider excessive restrictions27 actually encourage the growth of a black market, which is damaging to objects and to the supply of information about the human past. A relaxed export regime allowing for an increased quantity of legally available material would, in the view of dealers, encourage legitimate transactions obviating the need for a black market. There are detractors of this scheme (Brodie 2005, Brodie, Doole, and Watson 2000, Gerstenblith fmthcorning, Prott 2005) who believe the legal market will have the opposite effect- an increased volume will actually stimulate the black market to compete with the legal venue. Brodie (2004: 89) contends, "It seems inevitable that a similar commercialisation of the antiquities trade would follow any relaxation of export controls, causing higher levels of 'consumption' with the further site destruction that would ensue". In an analogy with the market for marijuana, Brodie (2004: 88) effectively demonstrates that relaxing the legal mechanism, which prohibited the use of cannabis led to an increase in demand. The consensus among free-market suppmters is that export laws and national patrimony legislation have a tightening effect on the market, which results in an underground trade. Bator (1983: 38-40) distinguishes between two types of export control: embargoes and screening. States imposing a total embargo forbid the export of any cultural material, whereas states with a screening system allow the expmt of all but the most important pieces -those most culturally significant to the country in question. Those suppmting a free market suggest that facilitating decisions of cultural significance might involve the creation of an intemational impartial board that would oversee and assist nations in determining what is nationally/culturally significant. This neutral panel 27 By restJictions this group means exp01i regulations and national pat1imony laws (see Borodkin 1995 and Pearlstein 1996). 11 could also assess endangered sites and antiquities and decide how best to protect the cultural heritage ofhumankind. Some (Borodkin 1995, Church 1992, Moore 1988, Pearlstein 1996) have suggested that this board could function under the auspices of the United Nations. Simultaneously, the market nations, ideally acting collectively under the aegis of existing museum and dealer associations, would unde11ake the policing of their own acquisition practices in a manner consistent with the extant ethical codes of museums and dealers. According to those who supp011 a trade in antiquities the imposition of exp011 controls and national patrimony legislation may also inhibit the individual's right to free enterprise (Brodie 2004, Mackenzie 2005). This sense of entitlement is echoed in interviews conducted as pa11 of this PhD research. Many archaeologists and dealers involved with the legal trade of antiquities in Israel (both for and against) asset1ed that it was every person's right to earn a living and if they wanted to do that selling antiquities then the State (of Israel) should not enact legislation to counte1mand this inherent right (Archaeologists 14 and 15; Dealers 14, 15, and 32; Government Employee 11)28 . A similar argument has been made by Brodie (2004: 92) that any attempt to completely regulate a market- and even Menyman (2005) agrees that the market must be regulated at some level- would encounter much opposition in places like the United Kingdom and the United States as it also "runs counter to the ethos of free trade and the belief in self- regulation"- the prevailing sentiment in many nations29 . ii) Redundant Material In his second guiding principle for the legal market Pearlstein (1996) suggests that many, if not most archaeological at1ifacts are redundant. Even the terminology used by those supporting a free-market- duplicate, excess, redundant, surplus - denotes that there exists a propmtion of a nation's material culture that is insignificant and therefore can enter the marketplace without deleterious consequence to the cultural heritage of archaeologically-rich nations. The thorny issue of detetmining cultural significance or 28 See Chapter 7 for futther responses on this issue. 29 To a cettain extent the UK and the US do regulate the trade in antiquities through relevant national and intemational legislative effmts . See the Convention on Cultural Propetty Implementation Act (CPIA) [1983] of the US and the Treasure Act of 1996 and Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act, 2003 in the UK. . 12 assigning the label of redundant to archaeological material is often an overlooked aspect ' of the free~market argument for a legal trade30 . In his discussion of redundant material, Neil Brodie (2004: 86-87) s'uggests that " from an archaeological perspective the term 'redundant' is problematic." In differentiating between the art world where stylistically indistinguishable pieces are considered surplus or redundant and the world of archaeology where minute points of dissimilarity might reveal important facts about ancient production and trade Brodie (2004: 86) reveals that the assignation of the tetm redundant to material is fraught with difficulties. In suppmt of the free-market position, tumours abound that archaeologically-rich nations everywhere have store rooms filled with duplicate, culturally insignificant material that they do not know what to do with, cannot care for and have locked away in musty, damp conditions that are harmful to the objects. Arguments for the sale of the material in storerooms throughout the world have been made by a variety of suppmters of the legal trade in antiquities. Menyman ( 1996: 29) suggests that the sale of surplus items is the medium through which the archaeologically-rich nation can most efficiently generate meaningful income. This excess income could be used for a variety of purposes including archaeology, conservation and ovet:sight of heritage management. However, studies .indicate that even though the Israel Antiquities Authority [IAA] has storerooms filled, if not overflowing, with cultural material, the sale of these artifacts would empty the facilities in less than a year (Blum 2001, Ilan, Dahari, and A vni 1989). Also, it is unlikely that the high-end sales -private collectors and museums- are interested in a tun of the mill duplicate pot. Nor will museums be enthusiastic about acquiring objects which bear the label "duplicate", I "excess", or "surplus" (Anderson 1996: 123, Seligman 1996: 133). What motivates most private collectors -whether individuals or museums- is rarity, beauty and a host of other factors discussed in Chapter 5 of this thesis. The present analysis is guided by Dwyer's (1996: 1 07) work: 30 The proposed decision making process is delegated to an intemational body who are thought to be fair and impartial when assigning importance to cultural objects. This is a similar proposal to the international panel's determinations on material available for export discussed previously. The free-market approach often points to the Rosetta Stone and the Dead Sea Scrolls as examples of culturally imp01tant objects, which, it is widely agreed, should remain in the country of origin (ironically neither of these examples is in their original context). See the contextualist section of this chapter for further discussion of the ' Rosetta Stone Dilemma' ofBrodie, Doole and Watson 2000. 13 "There is no way to expect that the sale of "excess" objects, even if source nations could be convinced that there was such a thing as excess or redundancy in their collections, would ever raise enough money to fund the infmmational and institutional control over archaeological resources that even Menyman realises would be necessary to open the market. Nor would the money raised in this fashion be sufficient to convince source nation politicians to make difficult choices and take chances by reducing 'naked retentionism'." (Dwyer 1996: 107) In essence he is suggesting that an archaeologically-rich nation selling off part of its heritage to raise the money needed to prevent market nations from stealing even more of it will not work. Support for the sale of redundant or surplus material is also predicated on the notion that no future museums will be built in the nations that cunently hold the excess material (Brodie 2004, Litvak King 1999). In Israel, this is clearly not the case as the IAA itself is constructing a new facility, the National Campus for the Archaeology of Israel, which will inc~ude a museum display area (see Chapter 7 for fmiher discussion). Cunently there are no national museums in the P A31 , however plans are undetway for the establishment of regional museums and eventually a national museum to rival the Rockefeller (fmmerly the Palestine Archaeological Museum) (Taha 2002). Contradicting the attitudes of the cultural nationalists and the contextual theorists, Menyman (1996: 36) argues that museums, collectors, and dealers who have been supplied by the legal market are more likely to confmm to other national legislation and furthermore may be more disposed to repatriate items of contention. Antiquities dealer James Ede (1996: 69) asks, "if contextual information is of paramount impotiance to the archaeological community, once it has been established, recorded, and published can't the artifacts be sold on the market?" Dealers and collectors criticise the archaeological community's position as reductive- equating the demand for archaeological material as the root of all looting. Ede and Menyman would suppoti this claim by asserting that cmTent destruction of the archaeological record is due to an imbalance between the 31 For a discussion of the hist01y of the Palestine Archaeological Museum, once the national museum of Palestine (now known as the Rockefeller Museum and under Israeli control) see Cobbing and Tubb 2005, Glock 1994, and Glueck 1968. 14 decreasing legitimate32 supply of artifacts and the growing demand; they argue that this' can be ameliorated through increasing the supply through the sale of surplus material33 . Prott (2005: 234) defends the archaeological and nationalist position by using Egypt and Syria as examples of countries that previously had systems of licensed dealers and permitted the expot1 of cet1ain classes of material. In both countries, oversight and policing of the market became too cumbersome and the market was rife with the substitution of restricted items for licit material. This same scenario will be demonstrated in the analysis of the cunent legal market for antiquities in Israel, as presented in Chapters 6 and 7. According to those advocating the free-market school of thought the legal market is the solution to the problem of the looting of archaeological sites . Those subscribing to this position firmly believe that international trade (the legal market) is inherently desirable, similarly they suppot1 the notion that most at1ifacts are redundant and lack special archaeological significance or cultural importance for the archaeologically-rich nations (those countties with archaeological resources). Opposing this position is that of the preservationists - those who believe that cultural material should not be bought and sold in the marketplace, for it is the market that encourages the looting of archaeological sites thus meeting market demand. The following section examines the position of preservationists, comprised of cultural nationalists and contextualists, who while fundamentally supporting a similar position, do not always share the same characteristics or motives for retaining the cultural heritage of a nation. Ill. PRESERVATIONISTS A. Cultural Nationalists Cultural nationalists are comprised mainly of archaeologically-rich nations who stress the impmiance of the relationship between cultural objects and national heritage. Cultural nationalists advocate the repatriation of national heritage residing in museums throughout the world, and believe that material from the nation should remain in the country of origin- where the optimum social benefits for the indigenous population are 32 According to Ede ( 1996) and Merryman ( 1996), a legitimate supply is one that is fully documented with accompanying exp011licenses and not in contravention of any national or intemationallaw. 33 The question of whether this model would be sh011-lived due to limited supply still remains . 15 located. In Hutt's34 (2004) analysis of this position, nationalists35 do not believe that repatriating miifacts will compensate for wrongful appropriation, rather the aim is to keep the dominant society from repeating past injustices. Another of the arguments used by this position is that of inalienability- the rationale that the cultural objects embody the collective identity of a population (a group, a region, a nation-state, a history), which should be available for future generations (Barkan 2002). Ownership, which includes the right to sell the cultural heritage, is a form of alienation- people divorced from their material past. Cultural nationalists believe that by allowing the sale of artifacts with associated cultural meanings and implications, those with claims of affinity will no longer be able to access their history. Some Palestinians claim that the legal market for archaeological material in Israel drives the looting of sites and the subsequent alienation of people from their land (Abu El-Haj 2001). 36 Proponents of this nationalist stance are very respectful of the items in question and often refer to them in a deferential manner, not as resources or mere atiifacts, but as objects of cultural significance. For many the cultural nationalist position fails to consider the issues of modern boundaries, and disassociated descendants. 37 In this critique, national identities are seen as modern constructiens used to galvanise groups into cohesive entities usually supporting a current political ideal (Hamilakis and Yalomi 1996, Lyons 2002). A fmiher criticism of the nationalist position is that favouring the return of cultural objects to the nation of origin is not always in the best interest of the objects in question. According to Hutt (2004), cultural nationalism at its extreme would have supported the bombing of the Bamiyan Buddhas as the ex~ress right of the inhabitants of Afghanistan. But, in retaliation to these accusations, cultural nationalists ask relevant questions like "how does 34 Cultural he1itage legal expe1i Sheny Hutt (2004: 17-36) has identified six categories- moralist, intemationalist, nationalist, prope1iy law, scientific, and market- concemed with the disposition of cultural he1itage. 35 For the purposes of this research Hutt's (2004) moralist category has been included in the . characterization of the nationalist position. 36 Not all Palestinians agree with stance as will be evidenced by the discussion in Chapter 3 of looting as a f01m of resistance. 37 This disassociation is evident with some of the modem inhabitants of Mali. Most are adherents to Islam and feel no particular connection to the Dogon mate1ial culture that is cunentlythreatened by pillage (see Mclntosh and Mclntosh 1986 and Sanogo 1999). A similar sentiment has been expressed by the villagers of Ghana who felt no ancestral links to the mate1ial culture or those that produced the aiiifacts (Kankpeyeng and DeC01·se 2004). 16 placing an archaeological artifact from Mali in New York City allow Malians to access ' their past?" (Prott 2005). Nationalists want to know how the intemational trade of material benefits the local .farmer in the less-developed nation. B. Contextualists Often seen as sympathetic to the position of the cultural nationalists is the contextualise8 stance of anthropologists, archaeologists and ethnographers. This group places primary emphasis on the information or meaning gained from the relationship between the object and its context. For them, the acquisition of knowledge for the benefit of humankind is highly valued. Proponents of the contextualist position aver that antiquities looted from archaeological sites are finite resomces and thus are incompatible with the exploitative nature of the marketplace (Brodie 2005: 1 052). Con textualists, it would appear, are aspiring to be intemationalist in stance39, advocating for intemational access to the scientific knowledge gained through the study of archaeological remains in their context. This view is often eo-opted by the free-market position using what Brodie, Doole, and Watson (200 1) have referred to as the "Rosetta Stone Dilemma"40 and what will be termed the "Scrolls argument"41 for purposes of this thesis. This "dilemma" prioritizes the accumulation ana sharing of knowledge over the rigid enforcement of national ownership rights (Niedzielski-Eichner 2005). Proponents of a legal trade in antiquities often use the examples of the Rosetta Stone and the Dead Sea Scrolls to bolster their arguments. These spectacular finds were either appropriated by foreign occupiers or purchased on the market but our knowledge of the past has certainly benefited from their study, or so goes the contention in support of the free movement of cultural objects . But as Brodie, Doole, and Watson (2001: 47) point out, the dilemma is interesting, but it is not entirely convincing as there are only a handful of instances that can be considered the equivalent of the Rosetta Stone or the Dead Sea Scrolls. 38 Hutt's scientific theory (see Hutt 2004). 39 See footnote 13 for a discussion ofte1m intemationalist. 4 ° For a full discussion see Brodie, Doole, and Watson 2000. 41 Purchased on the antiquities market, the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided insight into Old Testament manusc1ipts and infonnation on a pmiicular pe1iod in the history of the Middle East. For fwiher discussion see Silbe1man 1995a. 17 It is well recognized by some within the contextualist category that collecting has existed fot centuries and will continue to do so in the future. Although not categorically against the collecting of legally available material, they are against the looting of archaeological sites and thefts from museums in order to supply market demand. Those that are hostile to the contextualist stance have suggested that archaeologists only supp01i national legislation and policies and intemational conventions limiting the intemational movement of cultural objects in order to cuny favour with the prospective countries in which they intend to conduct investigations. According to Menyman (2004) this creates what he refers to as the "archaeologist's crusade", a virulent opposition to the position of the free-market movement42 . Criticisms of the contextualist position have also been levied asserting that scientific knowledge can also fuel the market for items and can also validate the authenticity of items, hence potentially adding to their commercial value (Dorfman 1998, Hutt 2004: 32, Wylie 1995). In some instances the two preservationist positions (cultural nationalists and contextualists) diverge or are even at odds with each other. There are often jurisdictional issues over whose position has plimacy. In the quest of scientific knowledge contextualists are not immune from sometimes taking a dogmatic or intolerant stance toward the religious or cultural sensibilities of some cultural nationalists. The Kennewick Man case (Bonnichsen, et al. v. United States, et al.) provides an excellent example of the competing claims of science ( contextualists) vs. the Native Americans (cultural nationalists)43 . Both the free-market and contextualist positions emphasise that some claimant countries (cultural nationalists) are not always the true heirs to the cultural heritage in question44 (Lyons 2002) and that nationalistic motives are not as altruistic as they may first appear45 to be. This argument is directed at those countries that impose national patrimony laws restricting archaeological access and expmi of excavated 42 Rather than attempting to cuny favour with national govemments, contextualists, may in fact support the recognition of, and respect for the legislation of the countties in which they work. 43 For fmther discussion of the Kennewick case see Cantwell 2000, Gerstenblith 2002, Lippet12005, and Owsley and Jantz 2002 . · 44 For an excellent example of this see the case of the Sevso Treasure, where no less than three countries (Croatia, Hungary, and Lebanon) claimed ownership of the silver artifacts (see Landesman 200 I) . 45 The Pat1henon Marbles are a good example of less altruistic motives for national repattiation claims. Some (see Hamilakis 1999; Hamilakis and Yalomi 1996, and Kersel 2004) contend that both Greece and England are interested in "possessing" the Marbles for economic reasons- the money that toutism, generated as a result of the Marbles, will foster. material. By declining to allow the movement of cultural objects, countries deny themselves an important source of revenue (through trade in the free-market position) and inhibit the advancement of science (the contextualist stance) (Barkan 2002). While quick to condemn the parochial nationalism of preservationist policies, free-market proponents rarely- if ever- question their own imperial motivations employing the guise of intemationalism by way of explanation (Handler 1991: 71 ). Gerstenblith (200 1: 200-201 ), in her critique of the free-market position, notes that: "The notion that cultural objects belong to all humanity and not a single nation is used today often as an excuse for reliance on market-based principles and as an apologetic for the wide-scale looting of archaeological sites. However, this intemationalist perspective has its roots in the customary intemationallaw that developed in the 18th and 19th centuries to restrict the plunder of cultural and artistic objects as war booty." Gerstenbli th (200 1 : 201) goes on to state that the intemational approach of the cultural pluralism of archaeological material does not provide for unregulated access to the world's cultural heritage. Instead Gerstenblith (2001: 201) insists that the free-market attitude imposes obligations for the prevention of destruction, plunder, and misuse, a fundamental p1inciple of customary intemationallaw. IV. CULTURAL HERITAGE SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT As previously discussed, two main schools of thought have been identified regarding the trade in antiquities- free-market and preservationist (comprised of cultural nationalists and contextualists). The free-market and its suppmters- which fmm the focus of this thesis - asse11 that by making the trade illegal it is forced underground and creates a lucrative black market. They believe that a legally sanctioned sale of antiquities will put the illegal trade and looters out of business and that countries with large stockpiles of duplicate cultural items should be more than willing to sell their heritage to the rest of the world, especially if the care and conservation of such items is beyond the ability of the countries in question (Hutt 2004) . Free-market proponents contend that the profits from the sale of artifacts can be used to suppmt archaeological excavations, as well as archaeological site preservation, and protection. Opposition to this school of thought includes those whoare suspicious of the free- market position's definition of cultural heritage internationalism. The removal and 19 retention of objects from less developed and f01merly colonised nations in the name of preservation and for the greater good of humankind is viewed as a mere justification for trafficking objects (Niedzielski-Eichner 2005). The free-market approach, as viewed by Prott (2005), Brodie, Doole, and Watson (2000), is a polite te1m for colonisation and exploitation and is tantamount to a one-way street for miifacts leaving under-developed46 areas of the world towards the wealthiest nations. In supp01i of this legal expeti Lyndel Prott (2005: 28) writes, "It is an observable fact that far more is flowing in the direction of wealthy countries than the reverse; it is far from an exchange and, indeed looks rather more like exploitation". In a counter argument to the claims ofPrott (2005) and Brodie, Doole, and Watson (2000), Lyons (2002: 128) reminds us that colonialism is not the exclusive domain of foreign occupiers, but is also a phenomenon that happens intemally between large city museums and, perhaps, govemmental institutions who eo-opt the best pieces for display from outlying local museums, a position that the cultural nationalist camp often overlooks. Nation states also have a vested interest in similar materials to those coveted by foreign collectors: the best examples of cultural heritage. The cultural nationalist and free-market positions are object-centred discourses of ownership, while the con textualist stance is part of the academic dialogue, which values knowledge over ownership. The free-market view often eo-opts the position of the contextualist by privileging the access to knowledge through the ownership of archaeological artifacts over national concems about cultural heritage. The contextualists are often accused of supporting cultural nationalism for their personal motives- access to archaeological sites and material. All of the theories are entangled and continually confront each other in the cultural heritage protection milieu. All of these positions, at one point or another, have been accused of being reductive in their collective approaches (Brodie 2005), relying on the veracity of previous statements with little or no factual evidence to support their various assertions. This PhD research will provide empirical data on the free-market solution to archaeological site destruction- the efficacy of a legalised h·ade in archaeological site protection. 46 It is a fact that most archaeologically rich nations are under-developed, but looting also occurs in developed nations. Motivating factors for looting are myriad (see Chapter 3), but they may be the same in all areas regardless of the economic conditions. 20 V. ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS Chapter 2 concentrates on the methodological approach to gathering information on the market, using examples from Israel and the PA to illustrate the production47 - distribution48 - and consumption49 model of Michael Coe (1993) for his study ofPre- Columbian art. Tlu·ough trial and enor in interviews with the various stakeholders50 involved in the legal antiquities trade in Israel, a methodology was employed to explore the efficacy of legally sanctioned antiquities markets and to answer some of the questions, claims, and counter-claims made by the valious voices in the debate over the disposition of cultural heritage. Chapter 3 focuses primarily on the "production"51 aspect of the model. That is, production of archaeological material for placement in the market which is highlighted through discussions of the history of archaeology in the region and the phenomenon of archaeological looting as an economic activity, a fmm of resistance, leisure pursuit, or a traditional activity. Other modes of production ( deaccessioning, chance finds, stolen material) are also explored. Distribution and the historical underpinnings as to why a legal trade in antiquities exists are examined in Chapter 4. An analysis of the pivotal 1884 Ottoman Law authored by Osman Hamdi Bey tlu-ough to the British Mandate period and the eventual partitioning and fractured oversight of cultural heritage in the region (divided between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan and in post-1993, the PA) are all considered. Chapter 4 also examines the physical manifestations of distribution- the antiquities shop. This type of study would not be complete without a discussion of why there is a demand and why people want to "consume" archaeological artifacts from this area. In I determining if we can establish a causal relationship between the collecting of archaeological artifacts and the looting of archaeological sites, it was imperative to 47 Production in this context is interpreted as the looting of archaeological sites to meet the demand for a1iifacts . 48 The legally sanctioned shops in Israel and Jerusalem's Old City. 49 P1ivate collectors, dealers, museums basically any individual or organisation that purchases archaeological material. · 50 All those with competing claims in the trade in antiquities: academics, archaeologists, collectors, dealers, govemment employees, looters, museum professionals, and tourists. See Appendix 2 for the complete list of interviews and dates. 5 1 Production is defined in the context of the mining of archaeological sites, the deaccessioning of collections (both public and p1ivate), and the theft ofmiifacts, and the manipulation of the market in order to supply the demand for cultural material. 21 investigate the collecting ethos and the desire for archaeological artifacts from the Near' East. 52 What motivates collectors 53 and, in patticular, why do people want archaeological material from the Levant? 'Does this practice have any bearing on the archaeological landscape? These issues fmm the focus of Chapter 5, through the lenses of the high-end and low-end consumer (tourists and pilgrims). Following on from examining the production- distribution- consumption model, it is necessary to consider the actual mechanisms that allow archaeological material to make its way to the living rooms of collectors or the display cases of museums the world over. What kinds of conduits do these artifacts pass through on their way to the Park Avenue apattment or Bible belt suburb? These questions are tackled in chapter 6, in which a model is employed to simulate the trade in antiquities, highlighting its defining or unique features and provide concrete data illustrating the actual pathway of an attifact. Chapter 7 presents the quantifiable statistical analysis of interviews conducted with the various stakeholders in the antiquities market over the course of three years . The analysis of this research resulted in an assessment of the efficacy, successes, and failings of the legal market in Israel. While much of the infmmation gathered from these interviews has been incorporated into the relevant preceding chapters, the answers to the original questions will be discussed at length, specifically whether or not the legal market in antiquities diminishes the looting of archaeological sites and whether should be a legal market in antiquities. Based on the findings of the previous chapters - that there exists a link between demand and looting- Chapter 8 focuses on future research directions. Specifically, it postulates the potential role of archaeological advocacy and watchdogs, local initiatives to combat archaeological site looting and future avenues of market research. Finally the concluding section- Chapter 9- will retum to the original question of whether or not legally sanctioned antiquities markets succeed as a solution to the illicit trade in antiquities. 52 For the purposes of this thesis, collectors and collections of Near Eastem mate1ial are the focus , with a specific interest in understanding how amassing collections relates to the legal market for antiquities in Israel. 53 In the following discussion, collectors are broadly conceived, and as a category include not only private individuals, but also museums, educational institutions, and all who purchase m1ifacts. Low-end and high- end consumers are discussed at length in Chapter 5. · 22 CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY This is the best and worst time to be conducting this type of research in the Middle East. (Government Employee 1 0) This chapter describes the valious qualitative research techniques used to collect, archive, and analyse data relevant to answering the basic question concerning the efficacy of a legal trade in antiquities. The methods used for this research project include: the active interview54 process, ethnographic analysis, pa1ticipant observation, and semi- structured interviews. As a social process, fieldwork necessitates relational events, which are unique to each situation. From designing the research and establishing goals, to collecting and analyzing and publishing the data, each aspect of fieldwork is dependent on interaction between the interviewer and the various stakeholders. Fieldwork relationships do not just happen, but are the outcome ofnegotiation between the social researcher and the actors in the field (Coffey 1999). Following Holstein and Gubrium's (1995) discussion of active interviews, the aim of the methodological practice employed in this work is to develop a relationship with the various stakeholders in order to gain information about the !egal market for antiquities. At the same time, it is acknowledged that both the interviewer and interviewee are actively constructing a nanative, a new entity or product- the ethnography. The research conducted for this PhD is what Marcus (1995: 96) refers to as a multi-sited ethnography- "an ethnography that moves from its conventional single-sited location, to multiple sites of observation and participation that cross-cut dichotomies such as the local and the global, the life world and the system." Following the global pathway of an attifact through the specific economic activity of the legal market is fundamentally a multi-sited effort. The trade dictates the interview process and pa1ticipants: looters, middlemen, dealers, archaeologists, collectors, tourists, government officials, lawyers, museum professionals, and conservators situated in Israel, Jordan, the PA, the UK and 54 The tetms interview and interviewing have been interpreted as describing the process of questioning and response in light of Wolcott's {1988: 194) definition of interview activity as " anything that the field worker does that intrudes upon the natural setting and is done with the conscious intent of obtaining specific information directly from one' s subjects." 23 the US. This work is both multi-sited and multi-vocal and the etlmographic inquiry had 'to reflect those realities. Traditional approaches to fieldwork interviews are based on the assumptions that 1. The interviewer is skilled and can gain and provide access to knowledge, and 2. There is knowledge to be accessed. As a newcomer to ethnography and interviewing techniques, I sought the aid of professionals in the UK and in the Middle East55 in order to gain proficiency in interviewing techniques. A total of ninety-four interviews were conducted in Israel, Jordan, the PA, the UK, and the US between January 2003 and October of2005. Interviews were carried out in a conversational style in an attempt to acquire a better understanding of the networks involved with the trade in antiquities. As an active participant in the interview process, I recognised that my age, education, gender, and background as a Near Eastem archaeologist resulted in inherent biases with the potential to influence how each interview was constructed and negotiated. The interviews were semi-structured. I began the process by developing what social scientists ( deManais 2003, Holstein and Gubrium 1995) refer to as an interview guide, outlining a series of questions and concems that I thought would best address the issue of the legal market (see Appendix 3). The interview guide provides the interviewer with a set ofpredetennined questions clarifying their own goals and the best approach to engaging pmiicipants in conversation. Use of the guide vmied from one interview to the next, becoming the crux of some interviews and vitiually abandoned on others (Holstein and Gubtium 1995). Early on the futility of conducting questionnaire-style interviews became apparent; they often produced single word or answers of extreme brevity. A much more productive appr?ach was to sta1i with one relevant question- Do you think there should be a legal sale of antiquities? Doing so at the outset and then allowing the respondent time to answer, digress, tell stories, and then retum to the original question at hand evoked more comprehensive answers, additional inf01mation, and nuance. Questions in the interview guide could be revisited if the conversation lagged or veered away from the subject. The active interview process allowed for flexibility but also kept 55 Specifically Brendan Burchell, Social Anthropologist, Magdalene College, Cambridge, Efrat Ben Ze'ev, Professor, The Truman Institute at the Hebrew University, Ruppin Academic Center, Paolo Filippucci, Social Anthropologist, University of Cambridge, and social policy analyst Panicia Neu, USAID. More generally, attending the Legal Anthropology module taught by various faculty members in the Depattment of Social Anthropology, University of Cambtidge proved an extremely beneficial experience . . 24 the research on track answering questions and providing infmmation relevant to the overarching thesis topic. The field researcher can play three alternative roles in investigation. They can act as the total participant- one who becomes completely and emotionally involved in the situation and only subsequently returning to the role of researcher and recording what happened; they can act as the participant observer - one who participates in a work/social situation but is either pa1iially or differentially involved so that he can function also as a detached researcher when necessary; or they can act as the total observer- one who observes without any personal involvement in the situation under study (Bogdan and Taylor 1975). Accordingly, I sometimes adopted the role of total pa1iicipant56 , but more often operated as a patiicipant observer. The term patiicipant observation, used here in the broad anthropological sense, includes "any and all appropriate means of gathering, recording, verifying and analysing data on humans in their natural settings" (Maanen 1988: 39). Participant observers are cautioned against bias in their research based on perceptions of the potential danger of over-involvement and being too friendly, implying subjectivity, possible distmiion, and inaccuracy of data analysis and reporting. Aware of these possible drawbacks various interview scenarios were explored before-deciding upon an effective means of obtaining data. This is the best and worst time to be conducting this type of research in the Middle East, one government employee stated ambiguously (Government Employee 1 0). In the aftermath ofthe Iraqi Museum's ransacking (see Bogdanos 2005a, Bogdanos 2005c, Polk and Schuster 2005), a news repmi appeared stating that many of the looted a1iifacts would probably find their way out of the Middle East through the legal markets I in Israel (Anonymous 2003). Since the publication of that repmi countless journalists wrote a1iicles on the legal market in Israel and how atiifacts from Iraq might find their way into the legal market. Consequently, misquoted archaeologists, government employees, dealers, and collectors became wary of granting an interview on this subject. Hence, the first obstacle to circumvent became gaining access to the various stakeholders in the legal trade in antiquities. 56 At no time did I pa1iicipate in the purchasing of an antiquity either legally or illegally. 25 the research on track answering questions and providing information relevant to the overarching thesis topic. The field researcher can play tlu·ee alternative roles in investigation. They can act as the total participant- one who becomes completely and emotionally involved in the situation and only subsequently returning to the role of researcher and recording what happened; they can act as the participant observer- one who participates in a work/social situation but is either partially or differentially involved so that he can function also as a detached researcher when necessary; or they can act as the total observer- one who observes without any personal involvement in the situation under study (Bogdan and Taylor 1975). Accordingly, I sometimes adopted the role of total patiicipant56, but more often operated as a participant observer. The tetm patiicipant observation, used here in the broad antlu·opological sense, includes "any and all appropriate means of gathering, recording, verifying and analysing data on humans in their natural settings" (Maanen 1988: 39). Participant observers are cautioned against bias in their research based on perceptions of the potential danger of over-involvement and being too friendly, implying subjectivity, possible distortion, and inaccuracy of data analysis and repotting. Aware of these possible drawbacks various interview scenarios were explored before deciding upon an effective means of obtaining data. This is the best and worst time to be conducting this type of research in the Middle East, one government employee stated ambiguously (Government Employee 1 0). In the aftermath ofthe Iraqi Museum's ransacking (see Bogdanos 2005a, Bogdanos 2005c, Polk and Schuster 2005), a news report appeared stating that many of the looted atiifacts would probably find their way out of the Middle East tlu·ough the legal markets in Israel (Anonymous 2003). Since the publication of that repoti countless journalists wrote atiicles on the legal market in Israel and how artifacts from Iraq might find their way into the legal market. Consequently, misquoted archaeologists, government employees, dealers, and collectors became wary of granting an interview on this subject. Hence, the first obstacle to circumvent became gaining access to the various stakeholders in the legal trade in antiquities. 56 At no time did I patiicipate in the purchasing of an antiquity either legally or illegally. ' 25 I. GAINING ACCESS. The problem of obtaining access to data looms large in ethnography. The problem persists throughout the data collection phase, but it often most acute in initial negotiations during the 'first days in the field' (Holstein and Gubrium 1995). Negotiating access, data collection, and analysis are not distinct phases of research, but represent significantly overlapping avenues of investigation. The interviewer can learn from the problems associated with making contact with people as well as from responses to the researcher's approach (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995). As we will see, negative responses can sometimes be as informative as positive responses. A. The Selection Process The initial research methodology of contacting people for a formal interview from the start had to be modified within a week of my arrival in Jerusalem. A much more effective approach was to speak with an individual in an informal setting (tea, garden party, sports complex- see Figure 2.1) laying the groundwork for a later, more formal, Figure 2.1 Information Gathering Coffee Session. (None of those pictured in this image were interviewed as part of this research). interview. Essentially the period of September- December 2003 was a series of informal meetings setting the stage for future work with prospective informants. 26 Potential participants, initially contacted in a letter, on the phone or via email, received a version of the following message: Dear [FILL IN], I am a PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge studying the legal antiquities market in Israel and the P A. I am interviewing antiquities dealers, museum professionals, archaeologists, collectors, tourists and government employees about the current state of the trade in antiquities in Israel and in the P A. I was given your name by [FILL IN] as someone with whom I should meet. I would like to meet with you to discuss your experiences with archaeological looting, the IAA proposal to sell archaeological sherds and your personal perceptions of the trade in antiquities. I would very much like to meet with you if your schedule permits. Any assistance you might provide would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to speaking with you. Sincerely, Morag Kersel At times, particularly in the context of pmiicipant observation, people selected themselves and/or others for interview. Many interviewees recoimnended other potential participants and even offered to provide introductions when necessary. Gatekeepers57 were often encountered prior to interviewing participants who work in hierarchical sectors (governments, museums) . Usually these were powerful people (superiors in the organisational stmcture) who attempted to select interviewees for my research. Gatekeepers either genuinely acted in good faith or attempted to control access and results. This necessitated a heightened sensitivity on my part to the attempts by others to manipulate the research agenda. Meeting with participants outside of their workplace was preferable in order to lessen the influence of institutional power. 57 Literally someone who guards an entrance and in this instances it is entrance (access) to the subjects of an ethnographic enquiry. 27- Although the suggestions or control of gatekeepers were not always welcome, "spillage58" sometimes proved useful. Active interviews take advantage of informational "spillage" from one interview to another, using the background knowledge learned from one interviewee to gain further insights from another. One dealer told me that some of his "newly acquired material" came from the Bedouin59 (Dealer 5) who had greater ease of movement throughout the P A and Israel. Subsequent dealers were then asked if they bought any of their material from the Bedouin. Whereas the standardised interview would try to limit informational "spillage" from one interview to another, active interviewing takes advantage of the growing stockpile ofbackground knowledge that the interviewer collects in prior interviews to pose concrete questions and explore facets of respondents ' circumstances that might not othe1wise be investigated (Holstein and Gubrium 1995). After an initial informal meeting or two the individual would usually agree to participate in my study, however in some instances subjects declined to take pa1i. In each case the potential interviewees were recommended by someone else as someone who has a lot to say on this subject and would make an excellent addition to your research (Archaeologist 11, Dealer 14). One responded to my request for an interview with a polite but fi1m email: I am sony but I am not a specialist in the matter you are working on. Another reply was not quite so polite and reflected the warning from the quote that introduced this chapter: I have nothing else to say on this subject. I can't think why X and Y recommended that you ask me for an interview as far as I am concerned with subject is over and boring and dead. I can't believe that you are conducting PhD research on this, stop wasting my time. In a later interview I was told that Archaeologist 24 (the speaker) was misquoted in a news repmi and was very wary of granting interviews. Luckily for my research these two instances were anomalies rather than the nmm. A third potential participant agreed to meet me and we arranged a time and place. I waited for almost two hours, finally concluding that the interviewee had decided against pmiicipating. Further attempts to contact the individual were met with silence. In the end I gave up. In many cases a key determining factor in pa1iicipants' positive response was the guarantee of anonymity. None wanted their name included in the study, nor did they want 58 Infmmation leamed in one interview and then used in subsequent interviews to gain further insights (Holstein and Gubrium 1995). 59 For fUiiher discussion ofBedouin involvement in the trade in antiquities see Chapter 3 of this thesis. 28 to be quoted, taped or photographed. Of the ninety-four people interviewed only two agreed to be "on the record" and only one agreed to be taped. One can only sympathise with the reluctance of participants, who were being asked for potentially incriminating information (e.g., where is the archaeological material is coming from?); the question then became how does the researcher reciprocate? There was, and is, no real quid pro quo in such research. What does this type of research offer potential infmmants? B. Quid Pro Quo There must be a shared notion of process of research in order for both the interviewer and the interviewee to benefit from the exchange (Bowler 1997: 66) . Ethnographers are usually reluctant to enter into direct market exchanges of money for knowledge, but instead they usually turn to gift exchange, "which despite all of our writings on the gift, we still tend to treat as less problematic" (Elyachar 2005: 31) than the exchange of cash for infmmation. I too, was reluctant to pay for infmmation, but in some instances I made purchases of tourist trinkets (bracelets or fridge magnets) as a gesture of goodwill. Elyachar (2005: 31) states "when we enter into exchanges with informants, we can become partially absorbed in the social networks that we want to study" this process of absorption is an impot1ant aspect of pat1icipant observation " achieving the interviewees' frame of reference. Buying tourist tat allowed me greater "access" to the dealer's realm, one of the targeted stakeholders in the trade. Constmctive outcomes were elicited by enlisting the aid of a professor60 of social anthropology at the Hebrew University and a seasoned program evaluator61 who routinely deals with quid pro quo issues in an interview setting. After many fmitful discussions it was decided that policy change and accountability were what this 1:esearch could offer most pat1icipants, especially those directly involved with the sale of antiquities and those monitoring said sales.62 On many occasions dealers told me that the licensing requirements enforced by the IAA were a huge hassle (Dealers 1, 2, 8, 14, 15, 27, and 49)63 . The unannounced visits by the IAA antiquities inspectors, conducted sporadically due to chronic under staffing, impede business for dealers. The 60 Efrat Ben Ze'ev, Professor, The Truman Institute at the Hebrew University, Ruppin Academic Center. 61 Pat1icia Neu, USAID contractor. 62 Israeli and Palestinian dealers, collectors and govemment representatives of both states. 63 See Chapter 7 for fmiher discussion of the IAA licensing practices. 29 dissemination of my research results64 might result in an overhaul of the cunent flawed ' licensing system65 in Israel, encouraging IAA policy and legislative changes. Although Israel has ·a system of legally controlled venues for selling antiquities, the Palestinian National Authority Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities [PA DOA] banned the legal trade in antiquities in 1996. Given the cunent situation and the porous borders for artifacts, looting and destruction of archaeological sites in the P A continues unhindered with the pillaged material ending up in the Israeli market. The PA DOA could benefit from the results of this study as policy options are reviewed and instituted in Gaza and the West Bank. All subsequent requests for interviews were framed to appeal to the conviction that by giving a voice to the free-market position- the often vilified collectors, and dealers- the cultural nationalists, and the contextualists, perhaps an equitable protection policy for the cultural heritage of the region could eventually be achieved. But this raises the question of why, in the first instance, would any of the stakeholders agree to meet with me? C. Credibility Gaining access to the various stakeholders in the legal trade of antiquities was not solely detennined by! quid pro quo, but was also established based on personal credibility. In Going, Going, Gone: Regulating the Market in Illicit Antiquities, Simon Mackenzie (2005b) states that he was considered more "credible" and gained greater access because he was of similar race (Caucasian), gender (male), class (middle), and education level as almost all of the interviewees. My own credibility lay in the fact that I had been an archaeologist in the region for over fifteen years and knew many of the archaeologists and government employees and through this association was able to gain access to other potential patiicipants. Compared with the archaeologists and government employees access was more difficult in the community of dealers and collectors . This was not surprising because they 64 One of the fundamental tenets in the Code of Ethics of the National Association for the Practice of Anthropology (NAP A) is that "Anthropologists will contribute to the growth of their discipline through communicating and publishing scientific and practical infmmation about the work in which they are engaged, including, as appropriate, theory, processes, outcomes and professional techniques and methods." The NAPA Ethical Guidelines, available from 65 The flaws in the !AA licensing system are examined in Chapt~rs 6 and 7. · 30 potentially had "more to lose" in terms of the possible legal repercussions of information they might provide. I started with some of the most well-known dealers and worked from there. In the Old City I routinely visited the same shops, drinking countless cups of mint tea and coffee with cardamom in order to cultivate relationships. My interview guide was translated into Arabic (see Appendix 4)66 and copies distributed to potential patticipants so that they were able to see the types of questions they would be asked to discuss. A year of fieldwork in the region allowed the investment of time to cultivate relationships in order to gain more information, greater insight and a "truer response," to borrow a phrase from Chambers. " [W]here research requires accurate p01trayals of stakeholder values or opinions, qualitative ethnographic data have often proven superior to survey data, patticularly in cases that involve long-tmm field exposure and in situations where informants might feel at risk or have other reasons to provide inconect [or misleading] responses, or where their tmer responses might develop over time." [Emphasis mine] (Chambers 2000: 859) Most informants were at risk either by criticising the government and losing their job, facing criminal charges for dealing in illicit antiquities, or losing their pride in purchasing an unprovenienced artifact and not asking for the proper documentation. From the outset this element of risk was understood and was incorporated into the reseal~Ch methodology. Once a few interviews were completed in the dealing community, word spread and I could rarely walk down the street in the Old City without someone asking me if I was going to interview them today. Attempts to meet with looters dming the year were thwarted repeatedly either because of the political situation or distmst. After cultivating a very good relationship with one of the dealers in the Old City, he ananged a meeting with a group of organised looters from the P A. After a year and a half, the meeting with the looters was established, but as the day of encounter neared an article appeared in the Jerusalem Post (Lefkovits 2005b) stating that the day before four looters had been atTested in a night raid by the anti-theft unit of the IAA. The looters called off the meeting, perhaps apprehensive about the prospect of what I would be doing with the inf01mation I gathered. 66 Between my Hebrew and the typical mastery of English by Israeli participants there was no need to have the interview guide translated into Hebrew. 31 ,. In the field researchers are often viewed by their interviewees through a patticular' lens. "No matter how long the ethnographer stays in the field, and no matter if language · and culture are shared, informants have their independent views of ethnographers" (Elyachar 2005: 34). I was altemately labelled as an archaeologist, PhD student, Albright scholar67, someone studying at the University of Cambridge68, and tourist. Some of those I interviewed thought that I was canying out research on behalf of the IAA saying I think you are an Israeli spy for the !AA (Dealer 1 0) or the PA DOA, as my enquiries were unusual for a field archaeologist. Initially I would attempt to disabuse those perceptions, but in persistent instances, rather than over coming these notions, I would consciously mobilise them in my fieldwork. Okay, if I am a spy, what would you like me to tell the !AA about the licensing scheme? was my response to Dealer lO's accusation. During fieldwork, I gained a reputation among most stakeholders as a trustw01thy, non- judgmental individual who was "only doing a PhD" and not using the results of the research for anything other than that. Despite these successful inroads into the legal market for antiquities, I continued to wony about the credibility of my research. There is an inherent faith that the results are trustw01thy and accurate and that the relationship between the interviewer and the respondent that evolves during the interview process has not unduly biased the account. How could tllis research be verified without someone revisiting all of the people and places and re-interviewing each and every participant? deManais (2003) states that rigor in design as well as skill in the interview enhances the credibility and trustworthiness of the study, but was this enough? Consulting with criminologist Ken Polk69, who routinely deals with the issue of .academic truthfulness and an accepted methodology of verifiability, he suggested that 67 I was generously awarded a research grant from the W.F. Alblight Institute in Jerusalem to conduct my study. Past residents (see Glueck 1968) of the Albright Institute (established in 1900 and located in East Jerusalem) have purchased artifacts from, and provided testimonials (see Chapter 7 for a discussion and example of this) for vatious antiquities dealers. The Albtight Institute also has an excellent reputation for hosting noted scholars in archaeology, and for encouraging and fosteting dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian researchers . Thus my association with the Albright Institute was viewed in a positive light by many of the stakeholder groups from both Israel and the PA. 68 This association with a well respected academic institution also conveyed positive connotations. 69 Kenneth Polk is professor of Criminology at the University of Melboume. He has wtitten extensively on ctiminal aspects of the art and antiquities market. 32 '1 ""!"11 much research of this type is guided by the "protection of rights of human subjects." Under these provisions researchers are required to: 1. notify the subjects ~ in the form of a plain language statement- of the nature and purpose of this research, 70 2. inform them of any risks posed by the research, 3. describe in detail how the informants will be identified, and 4. how and where the data will be stored. (Polk 2003) A patticular concem for the present research was how to preserve the anonymity of informants yet maintain validity of the final research. The provision of anonymity is a standard, widely accepted criminological method. The nmmal procedure is to assure respondents that their data will be treated anonymously- that is, they will not be identified by name- and further procedures will be taken to ensure that their identity will not be revealed. Another way to obviate challenges to authenticity is to provide a written transcript of the interview for patticipant's annotations (Polk 2003). After every interview a transcript was provided and the subject was asked for comments and cotTections on any remarks made during the meeting. This methodology proved to be an effective means of acquiring fmther infmmation on various points. After seeing their words in writing, patticipants usually elaborated on questions, adding fmther insights and anecdotes. In only one instance did someone withdraw from the study after reviewing his or her transcript. In that particular case, the subject felt that their comments about their employer were far too inflammatory, possibly jeopardising their job if any part of what they communicated was published. Il. THE ACTIVE INTERVIEW Interviews are not simply exchanges of questions and answers by researchers and participants. Figure 2.2 illustrates the various characteristics of the researcher and the 70 This notion of informed consent is the basic p1inciple of scientific research involving human populations. This research followed the inf01med consent guidelines as stated in the AAA Code of Ethics, available at 33 RESEARCHER PARTICIPANT Before the Interview - Desighs the study - Listens to the interviewer desc1ibe • Research goals the study • Interview guide -Asks clmification questions about - Selects pmiicipants the study - Seeks access -Checks the credibility of the - Cultivates relationships researcher through networks - Explains the study to pmiicipants -Consents to be interviewed During the Interview - Begins interview with the initial - Responds to questions question : Should there be a legal sale -Elaborates and explains answers of antiquities? more fully in response to interviewer's -Asks additional interview questions probes using the interview guide as a template -Assumes the role of narrator, story- -Probes participants' responses for teller related to the initial question more detailed explanations -Provides the names of other potential - Assumes the role of active listener, participants encourager - Talks more than listens - May make some conversation depending on the type of interview - Listens more than talks After the Interview - Reviews interview notes -Reads over transcription - TranscJibes notes -Responds to the transcription with - Checks transc1iptions and analyses corrections and/or amendments the data - Pmiicipates in subsequent interviews - Sends a final draft of the transcript to the pmiicipant Possible Roles Designer Responder Guide Storyteller Lea mer Nanator Listener Teacher Encourager Lea mer Supp01ter Collaborator Collaborator Interpreter Analyst Networker Interpreter Who holds control or Power of social science inquiry; power Power of knowledge and expe1ience power in the interview of scholarly language; power of sought by researcher process? researcher position Control in design of study and guiding Control in what is told and what is of the interview process omitted from the nanative Control in interpretation of data Control in re-interpreting or providing alternative interpretations of data Control in where and how research Possible collaboration in where and results get disseminated how research results get disseminated based on negotiation with the researcher Figure 2.2 Characteristics of Researcher and Pmticipants tlu·oughout the Interview Process (after deManais 2003). '34 participant before, during, and after the interview. Also outlined are the potential roles that each group can take on and how the power is distributed tlu·oughout the interview process. The question of power "relations" in the interview process is an important component and it was necessary to acknowledge the potential for subjectivity, as discussed previously. The entire process is guided by the interviewer and their research questions but the respondent holds the knowledge. The researcher attempts to establish equality between the researcher and the patticipant by according great impmtance to the information provided by the interviewee- the knowledge is privileged. To do this the researcher assumes the role of leamer and the participant becomes the teacher and is encouraged to share his/her experiences (deManais 2003). A. Respondents There can be two types of respondents in an active interview: 1. respondent as repmter of the subject's knowledge or the 2. respondent as narrator of experiential knowledge (Holstein and Gubrium 1995). During the course of the active interview the position of the patticipant and the social researcher shifts many times. Tlu·oughout the course of a single interview dealers spoke with authority from their positions as collectors, archaeologis~s, Israelis, Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, and/or businessmen 71 . By treating the interview as active, respondents were encouraged to shift position in order to gain a different perspective and stock of knowledge. The preforrnulated questions often acted as catalysts for respondents' answers, but myriad other interactional and discursive actions also provoked and shaped responses. Often while in an antiquities shop a potential consumer would enter72 I would then pause the interview and the dealer would greet the visitor. Whether or no't a tr·ansaction took place, when the interview recommenced discussion was usually centred on the visitor, eliciting interesting comments that might not have arisen othetwise. In some cases the respondents needed little prompting to activate their narrative proclivities. The "interview" was hardly necessary and the ethnographer became stenographer. 71 All of the dealers that were interviewed were male. Of the sixty licensed dealers (for the year 2004) in the legal market in Israel, there are only two women, and each is a eo-licensee with a male counterpart. 72 In no way did I wish my research to stand in the way of someone's livelihood, so prior to beginning the interview I would ask each dealer if they wished me to leave while they were conducting a business transaction . Some said that I had to leave, but most agreed to let me watch (without interacting). 35 B. Field Notes and Analysis Field notes are the traditional means in ethnography for recording observational data. They usually consist of descriptions of social processes and their contexts from which codes and themes can be discerned. According to Holstein and Gubrium (1995) both the interviewer and respondent continuously engage in coding. Coding is a continuous experience and integral part of the interview process. Analysis followed the open, axial, and selective73 coding stages of grounded theory proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Through coding the data are categorised and defined but analysis of data is not a distinct stage of the research. In many ways it begins with the pre-fieldwork phase, in the formulation and clarification of the research problems, and continues through to the process of writing repmts, articles, and books. C. Triangulation In order to ensure some measure of veracity a system of triangulation 74 both within the study and through the literature review of sources was employed. More specifically, data-source triangulation involves the comparison of data relating to the same phenomenon but deriving from different phases of the fieldwork (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995). In allcases an effort was made to triangulate data recovered through interviews. Researcher-participant conoboration was used to verify the previously mentioned assertion made by one dealer that the Bedouin moved material between the PA and the legal market in Israel; in further interviews this was confirmed by no less than five other respondents (Dealers 2, 3, 46, 55; Miscellaneous 1; Government Employee 10), thus providing some corroborating supp011 to the original claim. There are other kinds of triangulation besides that relating to patticipants' accounts. There is the possibility of triangulation between different researchers, what Denzin ( 1978) refers to as investigator triangulation, in which multiple researchers examining the same phenomenon obtain similar infmmation, leading to comparable 73 Open coding is a constant comparative approach to the data, while axial coding defines common themes in the data, and selective coding reveals the relationships between the categoties. All three types of coding were employed in the analysis of the data (Glaser and Strauss 1967). 74 Triangulation is the process of checking inferences drawn from one set of data sources by collecting data from other sets (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995). 36 conclusions and results. Mackenzie's (2005b) study of dealers in Asian antiquities and Hollowell's (2004) ethnographic study of Alaskan subsistence looters repmi patterns in patiicipant responses that echo those of the present research. The data from these three studies underscore the interrelatedness of the "what" (the market for archaeological material) and the "how" (the looting of archaeological sites) . Wolcott (1988 : 192) suggests that triangulated techniques are helpful for cross-checking or for feneting out varying perspectives on complex issues and events. I found triangulation- both participant and research conoboration to be extremely useful in formulating an analysis of the legal market. Ill. ETHICAL DILEMMAS The Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners of the National Association for the Practice of Anthropology (NAP A) 75 state: "Our primary responsibility is to respect and consider the welfare and human rights of all categories of people affected by decisions, programs or research in which we take pati. However, we recognize that many research and practice settings involve conflicts between benefits accruing to different parties affected by our research. It is our ethical responsibility, to the extent feasible, to bring to bear on decision making, our own or that of others, informa tion concerning the actual or potential impacts of such activities on all whom they might affect. It is also our responsibility to assure, to the extent possible, that the views of groups so affected are made clear and given full and serious consideration by decision makers and planners, in order to preserve options and choices for affected groups." (National Association for the Practice of Anthropology 1988) While no code of ethics or set of guidelines can anticipate the unique circumstances of individual field research, it was on these guiding principles that I based my research, following the general caveat of "do no harm". In the early stages of my fieldwork I used research assistants 76 who acted on my behalf, asking probing questions of the dealer 75 A subsection of the AAA. The NAPA Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners are available from 76 The research assistants posed as tourists potentially interested in purchasing antiquities, asking in-depth questions regarding provenience, expmi licenses, find spots, illegality or legality of their purchase. I used a total of 6 research assistants . None of their findings are included in the results presented here. ·37 community and then providing me with the results of their findings. I thought that the dealers would be more forthcoming with "tourists" (my research assistants) than with me77 . I presented the results of my initial findings at the Making the Means Transparent: Research Methodologies in Archaeological Heritage Studies conference at the University of Cambridge. During the discussion pmtion of the conference my presentation elicited much response from the senior researchers in attendance (among them noted environmental psychologist David Uzzell): my "undercover" pmticipant observation was deemed unethical. By not providing full disclosure I was in breach of the second mle of the NAPA Ethical Guideline: "To our resource persons or research subjects we owe full and timely disclosure of the objectives, methods and sponsorship of our activities." I subsequently revised my research methodology, no longer using "research assistants" and providing each interviewee with an overview of my credentials, the objectives of the research project, and the methodology for data collecting. Another of the more intriguing ethical and moral dilemmas encountered as a result of this inquiry was whether or not researchers should be engaged with clients whose policies or actions might not conform to professional ethical standards or personal standards of morality and law. Does interviewing the various stakeholders implicitly condone particular behaviours? The idea that involvement is better than boycott pervades much of current applied research, but some have argued that association is the equivalent of complicity and have recommended that applied researchers excuse themselves from a wide variety of ethically ambiguous situations (see Berreman 1991, Escobar 1991). When inc1iminating infmmation is received, is it our duty to report it to the respective authorities, potentially compromising any future potential interviews, or even other related studies? How would research proceed under these circumstances? In one instance, I was scheduled to meet with a representative of a government institution charged with monitoring the selling of illegal mtifacts. This was not a formal interview but an information gathering session for both pmties. In the course of the conversation I related 77 My assumptions were based on experiences of Staffan Lunden (2004) who in his expose of the illegal movement of archaeological mate1ial in Sweden , found it much more effective to assume a role different than that of archaeologist to gain inf01mation on the illegal aspects of the trade in antiquities . 38 a story of how through umelated research78 I was offered genuine material by an unauthorised dealer. Immediately the govemment employee asked for the name and .location of the shop owner, which I declined to provide noting that to do so may compromise further interviews (the network of antiquities dealers is small and very tightly knit). We were, and still are, at an impasse. In the briefing paper "Consideration of the Potentially Negative Impact of the Publication of Factual Data about a Study Population on Such Population" Watkins (2000) states that under the AAA Code of Ethics Section III(C)(l ), anthropologists are reminded, " ... they are not only responsible for the factual content of their statements but also must consider carefully the social and political implications of the infmmation they disseminate. They must do everything in their power to insure that such infmmation is well understood, properly contextualized, and responsibly utilized .... At the same time, they must be alert to the possible harm their information may cause people with whom they work." I am bound by my membership in the AAA to consider the effects of my research on my study population. Additionally, Watkins (2000) warns that "self-censorship by the researcher might be harmful both to discipline and to the population under study." In my assessment of the situation both the discipline vis-a-vis my research 79 and the dealer in question would suffer ~egative effects if I repmted the name of the dealer to the IAA representative. Luckily instances of blatant illegality were rare in my research. IV. CONCLUSION Long enshrined as a method, a theoretical orientation, and even a philosophical paradigm within antlu·opology1 ethnography has recently been extended to cultural studies, literary theory, folklore, women's studies, sociology and cultural geography (Tedlock 2000: 455-456). The field of heritage studies may now be added to this list because heritage professionals use etlmography, interviewing and qualitative research on a daily basis to infmm their work. This type of research is predicated on the pmticipation and contribution of the public. No matter how much care the ethnographer devotes to the 7s Tl . . 11s event occuned while gathering data for a paper I was preparing on archaeological replicas for sale ~~the toUJist shops; see Kersel and Luke 2005 . . lfl had provided the name of the unlicensed dealer, it is probable that word of this incident would spread 111 the dealing community and no one would then agree to meet with me. As a result, my research (and the discipline) would have suffered. 39 project, its success depends on more than just individual effort. Outside social forces including local, national, and sometimes intemational relationships, make the research possible. There are myriad social forces affecting the work undertaken in this thesis . Ethical issues arose and were confronted almost daily and decisions on how to proceed in the face of a dilemma were made. The underlying element of illegality in some subject's actions determines much of how the methodology was structured, how questions were asked, and how interviews were initiated and carried out. Through trial and enor, discussions with social antlU'opologists, heritage practitioners, and professional policy evaluators, an acceptable, verifiable methodology was constructed and employed to investigate the many facets of the legal h·ade in antiquities. Once established this certifiable methodology was employed to gather infmmation on the central question of this thesis -what impact the legal trade in antiquities has on the looting of archaeological sites. 40 CHAPTER THREE PRODUCTION "Its easy work and easy money." Looter from the Hebron area (Goldin 2004) In "From Huaquero to Connoisseur: The Early Market in Pre-Columbian Art," Coe (1993), based on the earlier work of Heath (1973: 259), the author suggests that the pre-Columbian ati market is an economic system, where there is primarily a one-way movement of material mainly from the less-developed world to the developed world. 80 This process can be broken down into three spheres: production, distribution, and consumption. Through the system, artifacts move from archaeological sites to museums and private homes of collectors crossing both atiificial and real boundaries. Although atiifacts cross borders with seeming ease, the various stakeholders81 in the system rarely operate outside of their designated sphere, producers seldom coming into contact with consumers. This systematised model for the market is analytically useful and is adapted (Coe 1993: Figure 1) in a flow chmi to reflect the situation in Israel and the PA (see Figure 3.1 ). Employing this model aided in identifying the various actors in the network while simultaneously formulating a methodology for gathering information about the --- market. Once the actors had been identified and the networks assessed, the questions of whether or not the legal market is an effective deterrent to archaeological site looting and pmiicularly the relationship between demand and the looting of archaeological sites, could be clarified. 80 This theme of the ptimarily one-way movement of material echoes the stance of Lyndel Prott discussed in Chapter I . 81 See Figure 7.2 for a schematic model of the vatious stakeholders in the trade . 41 Figure 3.1 iS f= (.) :::> 8 a: a. COUECTORS MUSEUMS Movement of archaeological material (after Coe 1993). In addition to examining the trade in antiquities using Coe's production- distribution-consumption model, the commodity chain82 model is also helpful in analysing the movement of antiquities. The trade in antiquities in Israel can be primarily depicted as a three-part commodity chain83 operating nationally and/or transnationally: 1. artifact cultivation and production, 84 2. the movement of archaeological material by middlemen and the distribution by dealers either within the countries of origin or through exportation to other areas, and 3. the eventual consumption of material in licensed antiquities shops by collectors, museums, and tourists. This consuming of artifacts can take place in centres both inside and outside of the Middle East. 82 As defined by Hopkins and Wallerstein (1986:159), a commodity chain is a "network of labour and production processes whose end result is a finished commodity." For the purposes of this thesis, the finished commodity is the artifact in the legal market place. 83 For a full discussion of commodity chains see Bestor 2001; Brodie and Renfrew 2005; Gereffi, Korzeniewicz, and Korzeniewicz 1994; Hopkins and Wallerstein 1986; Marcus 1995; Rothman 2000; Wilson and Zambrano 1994. 84 Production is defined as the looting of archaeological sites, deaccessioning of museum material, or the recirculation of pre-1978 collections. 42 The following three chapters examine this commodity chain model by following the artifact through each of the links in the chain. This chapter addresses the production aspect of the trade- the looting of archaeological material and the historical antecedents (religious pilgrimage and the acquisition of relics) in the region that set the stage for the current situation. The types of so-called production: looting, deaccessioning85 (museum and private), chance finds, and stolen materials are also examined in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 -distribution- is an examination of why a legal trade exists and its legal underpinnings. Chapter 5 investigates the consumption aspect of the commodity chain, specifically the purchase of mtifacts by tourists (low-end collectors)86 and high-end collectors of Near Eastern material, with a particular interest in understanding how amassing collections relates to the legal market for antiquities in Israel. I. A HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE ACQUISITION OF ARTIFACTS IN THE REGION The production of archaeological mtifacts for consumption is a historically entrenched activity in the Holy Land and one cultivated and exploited by the local inhabitants over generations. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim pilgrims have long been enticed to the land of the Bible. Archaeology has been closely associated with pilgrimage and ritual in the area for centuries. As early as the second century CE, the first Christian pilgtims from various parts of the Roman Empire began to arrive in the Holy Land to walk in the paths of Jesus and the Apostles (Silbe1man 1982: 5). The adoption of Christianity as the official relig;ion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century CE saw a decisive transfmmation with a surge in the search for biblical, pmticularly New Testament, sites (Hunt 1982, Wilken 1992). The effmts ofHelena, mother ofthe Emperor Constantine were among the first attempts to identify the sites of the Bible. Helena was not content to merely walk in the footsteps of Jesus, she wished to find the actual locations of biblical events and to enshrine them for future pilgrims (Silbe1man 85 Deaccessioning is the process of petmanently removing atiifacts (for the purpose of this thesis) from a museum's collection, usually sold to generate futiher funds for the museum. Although an infrequent occunence, deaccessioning can introduce additional archaeological matetial into the marketplace. 86 For a discussion of low-end collecting see Colwell-Chanthanphonh 2004 and Hollowell-Zimmer 2003. 43 1995b). With this began the era of Byzantine pilgrimage87 • The motivations of these early' intrepid travellers ranged from not only visiting the sites, but for the first time, the associated archaeological artifacts began to take on significance- they signified88 a place associated with the Bible and were to be venerated wherever their final resting place. "Bones of saints, garments and shrouds of New Testament figures and virtually every sort of relic associated with famous biblical personalities were dug up, bought, sold, and highly prized for their spiritual and healing power. By the end of the fourth century CE, the export or 'translation' of relics from the Holy Land had reached enormous proportions." (Silberman 1995b: 11) Early pilgrims were encouraged by church officials to acquire relics. They were aided in this pursuit by the establishment of the mechanisms for buying and selling sacred paraphernalia by the various religious entities. Relics became an important source of revenue for the monastic and religious establishments in the Holy Land. Pieces of the Figure 3.2 Products from a replica factory in Hebron. 87 Here I am using Feige's (2001: 97) definition of pilgrimage- a journey leaving the political and social centre of life in order to visit a symbolic and religious centre located on the geographical periphery. 88 See Chapter 5 for further discussion of artifacts from the Holy Land as signifiers. 44 True Cross, Jesus' burial shroud, vials ofMary's milk, and body parts ofthe various saints were {and still are) sold at the different religious institutions frequented by pilgrims. The value of these 1~elics and the myriad conflicting claims to possession of identical relics led to an even greater emphasis on the objects themselves. A small cottage industrl9 for the production of relics to meet market demand emerged in the areas suiTounding the religious sites (Bethlehem, Hebron, and Jerusalem)90 . The Muslim rulers of the seventh century CE onwards made no real objections to the continued Christian pilglimage to the area (Schick 1988), until the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 by the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim (Silbe1man 1982). The ensuing Crusades were a battle for the ancient shrines and artifacts of the Holy Land during which the trade in relics and seasonal religious tours continued and acted as manifestations of economic and political connections between European cities and the trade networks of the region (Silbe1man 1995b). Control over the various lucrative religious sites became a central issue in many international struggles throughout the Middle Ages and Ottoman period. During the sixteenth century Cmistian pilgrimage declined as the Reformation swept tm·ough Nmihern Europe. Protestantism no longer encouraged the physical trek to the Holy Land and adherents could instead make a spiritual journey. Silberman (1991: 78) suggests that the "Holy Land was thus transfmmed from a place to a metaphor in Protestant thinking." The subsequent rise of antiquarianism gave rise to a new secular interest in the area. The once purely religious interest in the Holy Land began to give way to a more down-to-emih curiosity aboutits artifacts, monuments, plants, people, and ruins. Those on the Grand Tour91 collected to fill their cabinet of curiosities rather than expressly for religious reasons. Explorers avidly collected samples of classical statuary, coins, and 89 A cottage industry is where the creation of products and services is home-based, rather than factory- based. 90 In an interesting parallel modem cottage indushies producing artifacts for the antiquities market through both looting and modem manufacture of replicas, exists in these centres at present. See Figure 3.2 for an image of a contemporary archaeological replica manufacturer in Hebron. 91 The Grand Tour is defined as a tour of the p1inciple cities and places of interest in Europe, f01merly supposed to be an essential part of the education of young men of good bi11h or fortune (OED). Under Towner's (1985: 300-301) definition of the Grand Tour, the tour can also be considered wherever the wealthy went, which included the Near East. 45 pottery. The scholarly understanding of the history of the Holy Land was for the first time independently expanded tlu·ough the study of material artifacts (Silberman 1995b: 12). The early nineteenth century saw a new group of explorers to the Middle East, who Silberman (1995) refers to as sceptical pilgrims- those who questioned the historical reliability of the traditional pilgrimage sites. These explorers established a new type of journey to the Holy Land, which furthered the Protestant nations' imperial ambitions by challenging the traditional view of the Holy Land (Silberman 1995b ). Neither scientists, nor religious pilgrims, people like Buckingham, Burkhardt, Seetzen, and Stanhope all attempted to blend in with the locals and the scenery in order to gain a greater understanding of the area and its relationship to the Bible, gaining a perceived truer naiTative accuracy. Visitors to the area were now interested in discovering the "true" sites of the Bible rather than blindly accepting the teachings of the church. This they did tlu·ough searching for archaeological a1iifacts that bore some connection to the Bible. This desire for historical veracity and an authentic depiction of the Bible was "not only a requirement of the positivist ethos of the nineteenth century, it also came in direct response to new challenges to the literal interpretation of the Bible" (Shaw 2003: 59)- Darwin's treatises on evolution92 . By the 1850s biblical scholars were attempting to develop a scientific defence for the Bible. Darwin's views put into question biblical narratives by suggesting that the history of the emih was much older than the Bible depicted and that humans were not the creation of God but the result of millions of years of evolutionary adaptation. Western archaeologists began excavating to uncover archaeological evidence of events rather than just speculation, creating the phenomenon of biblical archaeology (Silbe1man 1991: 78). Artifacts began to displace text as the primary evidence confirming biblical asse1iions and constructing a historicity of the Bible. During this period national archaeological institutions of enquiry were established by the Americans, the British, the French, and the Germans. "Competition between scholars of the various Western nations could be bitter, seeing the important archaeological sites of area not so much as sacred slu·ines as valuable sources of prestige- 92 On the Origin oft he Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859) and The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex ( 1871 ). 46 giving antiquities" (Silbetman 1997: 66). Once again the primary emphasis was placed on the artifact rather than the particular site. It is interesting to note that the geographical distribution of the Ottoman excavation concessions closely reflected the political, religious, and tetritorial spheres of interest of each nation. The British in the south and Sinai, were in close proximity to the Suez Canal; the French (Dominicans) in Jerusalem, near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and other impmtant pilgrimage sites; the Americans were entitled to excavate in Transjordan, the area associated with supposed New Testament sites; and the Getmans assigned to the Galilee and Jezreel valley were conveniently close to the Haifa spur of the Hijaz Railway- then under the supervision of German engineers (Silbetman 1997). The pursuit of archaeology became a national rather than individual undettaking- foreshadowing future Israeli endeavours in the area. In response to increasing foreign interest in the area and the looting of archaeological material from the Empire93 , an early Ottoman Antiquities Law was passed in 187 494 for the regulation of the movement of antiquities uncovered during archaeological excavations. This first antiquities law was primarily aimed at foreign nationals and was intended as a protection mechanism. A subsequent Ottoman law established in 1884, established national ownership over all a1tifacts in the Ottoman Empire and sought to regulate scientific access to antiquities and sites (excavation permits were required). Under the law all artifacts discovered in excavations were the property of the Imperial Museum in Constantinople and were to be sent there until those in charge made decisions about the disposition of the finds (Gibson 1999). This law could be considered the first instance that archaeological material from the region was deemed impmtant enough to pass legislation to ensure its safekeeping. Altematively the law could be construed as legalised cultural imperialism95 -the Ottoman Empire preserving not only the archaeological legacy of the core but appropriating material from its territories as far away as the Balkans and the southem Levant in order to control and tax the sale of antiquities from the periphery. By 93 This law was enacted shmily after the Pergamum Altar was exproptiated (Marchand 1996: 20 I). 94 For futiher discussion of the Ottoman legislative initiatives see Chapter 4. 95 As defined by Edward Said (1994), cultural impetialism most clearly applies to the expetiences of countties whose national treasures have been consistently looted over time, whose ancient tenain has been maned with amateutish and destructive excavations, and whose history has been defined largely by foreigners. In this instance the Ottoman Empire is the foreigner defining the history of its tenitories. 47 controlling archaeological goods, the Ottoman effectively regulated European access to heritage, access that had been previously unfettered (see Map 3.1 for the extent of the Ottoman Empire at the time of enactment of the 1884 law). Map 3.1 I TA L y ftmtlt p-o~tdorolt ~ '" '" ' U ll I . j \~. ;r' ""our ~~ ~l}i/'".tt ALGER IA ,.~ ,. 1>~: <' /\_ FREN CH WE ST Af RICA 1 The OttonMn rmpJ1c, 1798 - 1921 ,,_~ .• , . ,.,.,,t' ' t.IHl Y-•~ ::,· ~ ~v. -....... ...-u"fi'IH Cl!m• u ~r.;>••.n1.· • ~<'1•tJ V..•t',..Tr,·~~,., , ,_...,. !'-H • ~ul <.Yi:I:N.'d'.";/ lilltto1yl91/ / ( I \ / ·····::- / R U SS I A N E MPI R E """"-- / r/" - · ·~·"'"' . The extent of the Ottoman Empire in 1884 (Image from ). At the turn of the century, the character of archaeological work in the Holy Land underwent a methodological revolution with the beginning of stratigraphic excavations at some of the most prominent tells in the region.96 Simultaneously this period saw the decline and collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of competition for territory by the various European nations with vested economic and political interests in the area. Under the 1916 Sykt~s-Picot Agreement (see Map 3.2) between Britain and France, 96 See the early work of Flinders Petrie at Tell el-Hesi. Petrie was among the first to understand the importance of stratigraphic excavations at the multi-layered mounds (tells), which characterise the Levant (Bar-Yosef and Mazar 1982). 48 Map 3.2 .Ankara B LA CK SEA RUSSIA Samsun HUAL • Tiflis •Erivan .Jauf A I~ A B A THE SYKES-PICOT AGREEMENT OF 1916 FOR THE PARTITION OF THE MIDDLE EAST 0 I ILES 250 The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 (Image from ). Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising modem Jordan, Iraq and a small area around Haifa. France was allocated control of south-eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The controlling powers were left free to decide on state boundaries within these areas. The modem area of Israel and the PA was ceded to the British after World War I and in June 1922 the League of Nations passed "The Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations". The Mandate for Palestine was an explicit document regarding Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including: "secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home", and "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine" (Palestine Mandate 1922). The British Mandate period saw the establishment of an efficient, centralised colonial government and the improvement of transportation and communications throughout the . 49 country, as the Holy Land became one the most active centres of excavation and archaeological research in the world, often referred to as the "Golden Age of Archaeology"(Silbetman 1995b: 15). The British established a Department of Antiquities [DOA] during the Mandate period, directed with the objective of overseeing archaeology in the region. With the enactment of vatious Antiquities Ordinances97 archaeology and specific archaeological sites took on a much more professional and bureaucratic legal status, superseding any religious or magical significance imbued through centuries of pilgrimage. The Btitish oversaw the establishment of the Palestine Archaeological Museum98 [P AM] - built to house the administration of the Department of Antiquities, public galleries, the archives, a library, and to serve as a repository of the archaeological riches of the area (Cobbing and Tubb 2005). The care, exploration, and protection of the traditional religious sites came under the purview of the various sects and denominations. The remaining ancient sites and atiifacts "became a field of active historical reinterpretation, ideological identification, and political legitimation" (Silbetman 1997: 68) under the protection ofthe Mandate DOA. Regardless of national affiliation, large scale excavations during this petiod took on a new character with,sizeable professional staffs, the publication of site repmts, and greater efficiency through a hierarchy of skilled and unskilled labour. There was an abandonment of the system of baksheesh- where workers were given cash payments for finding "goodies"99• Archaeological stratigraphic methodology established by Petrie and 97 See Chapter 4 for analysis of the various Antiquities Ordinances and Antiquities Rules instituted during the Blitish Mandate pe1iod. 98 Now commonly referred to as the Rockefeller Museum, the PAM (officially opened in 1938) was built through the generosity of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. See Cobbing and Tubb 2005 for a histmy of the PAM. 99 Some questions that arise from the Golden Age of archaeology include whether or not the system of rewarding labourers for the discovery of finds is the precursor to paying looters for archaeological mate1ial, and whether archaeologists through the employment of a large workforce were actually training the future looters and middlemen of today's antiquities trade? The latter point was confirmed through recent interviews with archaeologists and dealers who stated that looters from the Deir Samet area were trained on the El Q6m excavation to recognise Iron Age Tombs (Archaeologist 5). In her dissertation on the legal market for antiquities in Alaska, Julie Hollowell-Zimmer also mentions that today's diggers in Gambell leamed from their fathers, who worked with the first archaeologists (Geist and Coli ins) to the region (Hollowell-Zimmer 2004: 31 ). Silberman ( 1995a: 32-33) in his examination of the Dead Sea Scrolls explains that the original finder was not a na'lve shepherd boy, but a wily member of the Taamireh Bedouin tiibe, some of whose members worked with archaeologist Rene Neuville at Wadi Khareitun . Neuville often encouraged his workmen to b1ing mate1ial to him, pushing the Bedouin to apply systematic archaeological techniques including keeping a notebook of find spots. 50 canied on by Bliss, Macalister, and Schumacher became the n01m for most excavations in the area. While the motivations for excavating often remained the same as that of original pilgrims to the area- t6 illustrate the veracity of specific nanatives from the Old and New Testaments- the new excavation strategies focused more on the contextual relationship between the atiifact and the site, rather than each independent of the other. The professionalisation of the archaeological excavation was born during this period. The Golden Age of Archaeology also witnessed the bitih of Israeli archaeology. With the influx of Jewish settlers at the turn of the twentieth century came an interest in linking the past to the present through tangible monuments and artifacts . Abu El-Haj (2001) assetis that first generation Jews living in the Holy Land were interested in producing empirical evidence of an ancient Israelite and Jewish presence in the land- employing the culture-historical approach. In 1912, the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society was established to encourage local interest in the antiquities and historical geography of the region (Brawer 1965). Early Jewish excavations focused on two types of sites: ancient synagogues like those of Hammat Tiberias and Beth Alpha and tombs, usually from the Second Temple (Roman) period or later. This program of inquiry attempted to cement fmiher the connection between the excavated archaeological sites and the Jewish state (Silberman 1997). Shavit (1997: 56) states that "archaeological findings nurtured a sense of continuous Jewish habitation of the land" reaffirming the contention that physical remains satisfied the need for a concrete example of a past existence. The cult of archaeological relics as refened to by Elon (1994) was widely thought to provide an immigrant society with a common culture, what Feige (2001: 90) refers to as "instant roots". Two distinct traditions of archaeology developed out of the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel and the patiition of the land between Israel and the Hashernite Kingdom of Jordan. During this period European and American archaeological expeditions were extremely active in Jordan, with 1952 witnessing the return of Dame Kathleen Kenyon to Jericho and then later to other excavations in Jerusalem. Excavations in the region underwent a revolution with the introduction ofthe "Wheeler-Kenyon" method 100, 100 The Wheeler-Kenyon Method emphasises the vettical dimension through analysis of stratigraphic layers and their contents . Vettical control came through the use of the balks separating gtid squares . adopted at excavations throughout Jordan (Bar-Yosefand Mazar 1982). Kenyan's work at Jericho emphasised the importance of following the stratigraphic sequence through the analysis of excavated layers, and established the foundations of a new era of archaeological research in the region (Bar-Yosef and Mazar 1982). Interdisciplinary work was at the forefront of the American archaeological research agenda during this period. During excavations at Shechem, under the direction of G. E. Wright, a younger generation of American archaeologists (among them Callaway, Dever, and La pp) was trained in meticulous stratigraphic work in combination with a detailed analysis of pottery. Field methodology was emphasised with a declared aim of reconstmcting all aspects of ancient life (Bar-Yosef and Mazar 1982). The fractured oversight of the Holy Land meant that in Israel a new Department of Antiquities was much needed and was formed under the auspices of Israel's Public Works depmtment (Hallote and Joffe 2002). Archaeology in Israel continued its mission of providing the nation of recent immigrants with roots. The recovery of archaeological evidence from the biblical past- associated finds from Israel and Judah- put the establishment of the modem Jewish State into historical perspective (Gopher, Greenberg, and Herzog 2002: 192). For the Jews, archaeology assured a continuity and affinity with the past, this meant that,ceitain finds and symbols 101 were emphasised and other were marginalised or neglected, constmcting a particularly evocative Jewish past (Shavit 1997). 102 In the 1950s the Israel Exploration Society became a national organisation, coordinating the efforts of public and academic bodies in archaeological excavation. This post-Statehood period also witnessed the crystallisation of a unique Israf'li style of large- scale, architecturally based, excavation, which continues to the present day at sites like Beth Shean, Razor, and Megiddo. An increasing number of tells were excavated and pa1ticipation in these excavations became like a national ritual for school children, soldiers, senior citizens, and foreign visitors alike. 101 Archaeological finds have inspired nearly all of the Israeli national symbols, from the currency, to medals, to postage stamps (Waiter Benjamin [1973] claimed that postage stamps were the visiting cards of foreign govemments left in the playrooms of children). 102 Somewhat ironically, much of this Jewish past was primarily constructed from sites located in the current borders of the PA . 52 In her book Recovered Roots Yael Zerubavel (1995: 59) emphasises the role that archaeology played in strengthening the created narrative of modem Israeli identity, reinforcing claims of the state of Israel tlu·ough large govemment sponsored excavation projects: "Archaeology thus becomes a national tool tlu·ough which Israelis can recover their roots in the ancient past and the ancient homeland. To participate in the archaeological excavation ... is to perform a patriotic act of bridging Exile to re-establish the connection with the national past and authenticate national memory." Zerubavel (1995) employs the example of Masada, 103 conducted by Yigal Yadin from 1963-1965, as one of the most obvious interfaces of archaeological and political narratives. The Masada example produces what she refers to as the "master commemorative narrative" that highlights the common Jewish past and the aspirations for a shared victorious future. In the early years of the state thousands of Israelis became ardent amateur archaeologists and archaeology became the spmt of kings: politicians, top civil servants, and famous army generals were all recreational archaeologists with many being avid collectors. 104 This fervour for a tangible connection to the land led many Israelis to excavate in their own backyards and to amass collections of archaeological material. Archaeology became entangled with nationalism and politics a long recognised and much written about phenomenon (Abu El-Haj 1998, Kohl and Fawcett 1995, Meskell1998, Rowan and Baram 2004, Silbetman 1982, Trigger 1984, Zerubavel 1995: 59). In the past twenty years there has been a dramatic decline in public interest in archaeology. No longer a nation of immigrants, Israeli-bom citizens have less need for a tangible connection to the land. According to Feige (200 1: 99) new generations of Israeli- bom citizens did not feel the same necessity for identity-fmming mechanisms as had their immigrant parents and the public interest in archaeology dwindled accordingly. But while local Israeli interest in the material connections to the past lessened, the rise of 103 Masada is a mountain-top, Hellenistic-Roman fortress site in the Judean deseti, adjacent to the Dead Sea, which was built as a fottress for the unpopular King Herod (ea. 74-3 BCE) as a place to escape if the peasants revolted . The site is known for Herod 's impressive building works and for the Roman siege and subsequent mass suicide that took place at the end of the Great Revolt in 73 CE. In the 1960s, this image of Jewish resistance was eo-opted by the Israeli public as a symbol of the tenacity of the Jewish people, and as a reinforcement of their claims to the land. Based on a re-examination of the archaeological evidence the melodramatic story of the mass suicide may have been a literary invention of Josephus . For fUJther examination see Silbetman 1995a and Zerubavel 1995. 104 See Chapter 5 for fUJther discussion of M os he Dayan as a collector. 53 fundamentalist Christianity brought new waves of tourists to the Holy Land who were, and continue to be, interested in acquiring a piece of the past to take home - an aspect to· which we return in Chapter 5. In the post-1967 State [re]f01mation, Palestinians appeared to have a much harder time laying claim to an ancient national heritage. Earlier eff01is by Palestinians focused on ethnographic material culture and a more recent history, while the ancient past was often overlooked and disregarded. According to Gopher, Greenberg and Herzog (2002: 193) like Israelis, Palestinians have been drawn into the same ideological eo-opting of the past, by enlisting Canaanite, Philistine, and Nabatean origins to supp01i present political claims to the land. Similar to the claims of Israelis, these assetiions of a tangible link to a patiicular material culture are tenuous and are often called into question. Some (Abu El- Haj 2001, El Hafi 2004, Glock 1995, Yahya 2005) have assetied that there is a disengagement between Palestinians and their cultural heritage, resulting in a population disconnected from its heritage and therefore much more willing to pmiicipate in the pillaging of archaeological sites. 11. MEANS OF PRODUCTION A. Local Looting Some looting is accidental, amateurish, episodic, and unorganised, while other instances of looting are organised, professional, systematic, and well-financed. Looting of archaeological sites in Israel and the PA, by both Israelis and Palestinians, to supply the legal market of antiquities is defined by all of the aforementioned characteristics. Ptimarily there are four types of looting that occur in the area under investigation: looting as a viable source of gainful employment; looting as a leisure activity- something undetiaken on the weekends and in the evenings; looting as a traditional activity stemming from years of experience as labourers on archaeological excavations, usually typified by the Bedouin of the area; and looting as a f01m of resistance. This last type creates a paradoxical situation in which the archaeological heritage of a nation is being purposefully destroyed and is the very thing that could provide tangible evidence of claims, by the looter or the community to which they belong- to the land. 54 i) Looting as a Profession Since the onset of the al-Aqsa Intifada (October 2000), when the subsequent closures of the disputed territories by the Israelis and the constmction of the separation wall prevented Palestinians from reaching jobs in Israel, looting has surged dramatically in the P A. Palestinian officials say that as much as half of the labour force is out of work and have tumed to pillage in their own backyards as a way of eaming a living (Ephron 2001). Employing the modelling of cocaine production ofWilson and Zambrano (1994: 303) artifacts are an ideal cash crop for Palestinians: a1tifact cultivation fits closely with the pre-existing, labour-intensive practices ( constmction, farming, menial labour), and uses readily available indigenous technology (agricultural implements, constmction equipment). On a typical day there are usually dozens of people in the Hebron area with picks, shovels, and metal detectors scouring the land for archaeological material. In some cases the looters use bulldozers to remove layers of topsoil to reveal unexcavated artifacts and sites (Archaeologist 5; Dealers 9 and 28). The same is hue of Israeli looters in the areas sunounding Beth Shean, Beth Shemesh, and in the Golan Heights; all archaeologically-rich areas (see Map 3.3 for general area, circled areas are among the archaeologically-rich areas typically targeted by looters) (Govemment employees 2, 7, 10, and 18). 55 Israel Intern ationa l boundary Ois lri c l (meiJOZ) bound~ry * Nnllonol capila l 0 Dis tr ic t (mo iJOl) ccnte r ~~ Ra ill oad Divide d highway Othor rond Thfl1950 11111 1 11 prot: lllmtllon that Jerusalem be II'IC'I national t:ll pi tal ls nor recovnlzod br !he Unllod S II IOJ OoYernm11nl M dtr r r ... d.,, •• .,, .... uu"" .. •I UCtll..,.,.•~ltooniiiiY AI J1h Map 3.3 General map of the study area, circles indicate areas of looting. (Image from ). Reports by the IAA anti-theft unit in Hadashot Arkheologiyot- Excavations and Surveys in Israel state that the robbing of archaeological sites in Israel and the PAis planned and organised (Ganor 2003, Zissu 1998). Based on a report by Amir Ganor (2003: 69-70)- head of the anti-theft unit, and col1'oborated by my own ethnographic interviews- a pyramid (see Figure 3.3) outlining the movement of material from the ground to the eventual consumer is useful in deconstructing the various relationships and networks involved in the trade in antiquities. 56 Figure 3.3 High-end cdlectors (few) Educational Institutions Museums Tcuists (rrany) Auction Houses .......... IAA Ucensed Bedolin +- - Middlemen • Move rraterial ~ ·Finance looting -----~~~~----------!------------------- • PrO\ide lads Israeli Looters~ Overseers+--- Palestir;an Looters Location • The PA • Israel • lnternati anal • The PA • Israel • 1nl ernati anal • The PA • Israel Interaction Sphere • The PA ·Israel Israeli and PA looting pyramid (after Ganor 2003). At the base of the pyramid are hundreds of looters, both Israeli and Palestinian, usually from a lower socio-economic scale. These looters are organised and sent to specific sites and areas at the behest of an overseer (usually Palestinian), who has some knowledge of archaeology, excavation methodology, and consumer demand. The overseer provides the map, equipment (metal detectors, hand tools, heavy machinery) needed to undertake the pillaging. The activity often takes place a night and at sites on either site of the Israel/P A border. Sentries are always positioned to ale11 the diggers and the overseer of night raids by the ant-theft unit. Ganor (2003: 69) reports that one overseer may employ two or tluee gangs simultaneously. Any material recovered is given to the overseer. In some instances looters are paid both by the job and by the piece, thus ensured of a steady salary whether they recover saleable artifacts or not. The overseer sells the recovered antiquities to a middleman from one of the many villages in the P A. The middleman, usually from an old collecting/dealing family and from a higher socio-econoinic sphere, provides the overseers with the necessary tools for excavation, as well as the financial backing. The middlemen from the Israeli/P A model are designated as residents under Coe's scheme (1993: 274). Under Coe's definition residents are nationals of the donor country, are well-connected, and have a legitimate 57 profession that is not the trade of antiquities (Coe 1993: 275). They also impart the knowledge about consumer demand and the market to the overseer (Dealer 20). The impmtance of the middlemen caimot be under emphasised. According to Ganor (2003) it is the middleman who contacts the go-betweens (Bedouin, dealers), who function on the national level to move the material between the PA and Israel. These go-betweens (or couriers in Coe's parlance) make their purchases, which they then sell to dealers licensed under the antiquities law in Israel (Dealer 5). The dealers 105 sell the antiquities to collectors, museums, and other merchants with the requisite export licenses and certificates of authenticity. The dealers are the key players in the trade. Through sales directly to collectors or museums, and access to freshly looted archaeological material, they can sometimes influence both what is purchased and what is looted. In an expose on the movement of archaeological material from the P A to Israel, Megan Goldin (2004) states that most of the grave robbers see their work as just a job- one that is dangerous but potentially lucrative. Even before the cunent unrest in the region looting was often viewed as preferable to factory jobs. The looter is outside in the fresh air; they make their own hours; if they make a spectacular find and reap the financial rewards, they do not have to work for weeks, living off of the proceeds from the sale; and most importantly, looted material is hard currency that is tax free (Silberman 1989). "It's easy work and easy money," states a looter from the Hebron area (Goldin 2004). ii) Looting as a Leisure Activity Various scholars (Hollowell 2006, Hollowell-Zimmer 2004, Migliore 1991, Smith 2005, Thoden van Velzen 1996) have discussed looting as a leisure pursuit cmTied out by families as a weekend activity. Sunounding this activity is a set of specific rules of conduct, superstitions, and knowledge that is handed down through the generations. In her examination of tombaroli106 Thoden van Velzen (1996, 1999) discusses how the tomb robbers feel like they are connecting with their ancestors by looting, something echoed in 105 See Chapter 6 for a discussion of the exchange of register numbers, a system that makes illicit archaeological objects licit. 106 Tombaroli is a te1m used to refer to Italian tomb robbers and looters of archaeological sites. 58 . statements by the Alaskans of St. Lawrence Island (Hollowell-Zimmer 2004, Staley 1993). In December of 2004 a dealer (29) and an archaeologist (7) in two separate interviews told me that looting was taking place in the Modi 'in area, a city halfway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv (see Map 3.3). The dealer (29) indicated that some of the Bar Kokhba material in his shop display cases was from a recently looted site. During the day Palestinians are illegally employed as labourers on the construction projects in the Modi 'in area and in evening, unable to risk retuming to their village on the other side of the bmrier wall (because they may be prevented from entering for their job the next day), they loot archaeological sites as a means to combat the boredom, in addition to eaming some extra money. On New Year's Day 2005 in the company of three other archaeologists, I travelled to the area of the reported looting to investigate the situation (see Figures 3.4- 3.7 for images). We hiked up to the site and found evidence oflooting in the form of spoil heaps, discarded broken artifacts, dislodged tomb blocks and all ofthe paraphemalia associated with excavation: ladders, buckets, shovels, tools, and a tea pot for the inevitable tea break. In our survey of the area we also found the makeshift lodgings and the Palestinian inhabitants. Whether these individuals were the actual looters was not possible to determine, but they were clearly agitated by our presence. The Palestinians kept watch of us from a close distance, but none seemed interested in answering the prying questions of a graduate student. We took notes, coordinates, digital images, and recorded as much of the area as possible and then left the area. Upon retuming to Jerusalem it was decided that one of the Israeli archaeologists would infmm the IAA anti-theft unit of the looting so as not to compromise my research. In late February of2005 Archaeologist 7 retumed to the area with a tour group on a field walk. He noticed that looting in the area had increased since our last visit. In pa1ticular, he identified artifacts from the Second Temple period in the spoil heap of some recent illegal excavations. Again he repmted the incidents to the anti-theft unit of 59 . Figure 3.4 Broken pottery in looters ' back dirt pile, Modi ' in. Figure 3.5 Make-shift homes of Palestinian construction workers. 60 New Construction I " Figure 3.6 Palestinian worker in Modi'in. New construction visible in the background. I Ladder for accessing the tomb I Figure 3.7 Looter's tunnel with ladder, Modi'in. the IAA and a week later in March of 2005 eight Palestinian construction workers were placed under arrest for conducting illegal excavations in the area of Modi' in (Lefkovits 2005a). In their defence the Palestinians claimed to be searching for a warm, dry place to sleep for the evening when they were apprehended in an underground compound of the Second Temple period. Looters who conduct activities as a leisurely pursuit learn their trade in the same way as the professional looters- usually from relatives who looted in earlier periods at some point in the past. Like the professionals, leisure looters do not search randomly. Looters share knowledge and expe1iise, which strengthens the sense of community amongst them. They spend time and effmi investigating potentially lucrative archaeological sites searching for clues: differentiated soil patterns, broken ceramics, or signs of hewn stones. Unlike the professionals many of the looters engaged in leisure activities were not "doing it for the money, but for the thrill of finding something special" (Feldinger 2004). But these looters rarely keep their discoveries and are also profiting from the pillage of archaeological sites 107 • For the leisure looter the goal is not to own a particular piece, rather the goal is the hunt and the discovery of the archaeological artifact. iii) Looting as a Traditional Practice Traditionally a pastoral nomadic group, the Bedouin, were (and are) well suited to discovering archaeological material and sites as well as facilitating the movement of material from its original context to middlemen and dealers throughout the region. Silbe1man (1982) states that as early as 1868 the Bedouin were well aware of Western interest in ancient a1iifacts. By the 1940s the Bedouin had become entrepreneurs in the trade in atiifacts and they continue in this role even today. It was a member of the Taamireh tribe of Bedouin who made the remarkable discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 108 . In his account of Jerusalem during the period immediately following the 1967 War, archaeologist Nelson Glueck (1968: 90-91) recounts his visit to the antiquities shop ofMusa Baidun. In negotiations with Baidun over a collection of pottery, Baidun states 107 Even though looting is a leisure activity, these individuals are familiar with the networks of dealers, go- betweens, and middlemen who can easily dispose of the mate1ial. 108 For a full account of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery see Magness 2002 and Silbe1man 1995a. 62 that he purchased the material from the Taamireh Bedouin who recovered the pieces from Dhahariyeh in the P A. In interviews with archaeologists (Archaeologists 9, 15, 21) and dealers (Dealers 5, 12, 14, 32) it was conoborated that the Bedouin are still involved with the movement and looting of archaeological material in Israel and the P A. A recent news report stated that archaeologist Hanan Eshel purchased109 a scroll with a passage from Leviticus from the Bedouin (Lefl<:ovits 2005c ). In an interview I conducted with a Bedouin elder (Miscellaneous 1) he suggested that there were fellow tribesmen who worked in construction during the day, scoping out the archaeological tenain and returning in the 1 evening to loot the area. Dealer 5 admitted that in the past he had purchased ancient coins I by the kilo from the Bedouin who came to his shop on a regular basis. Many of the dealers I interviewed (Dealers 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 32) stated that in the heyday of the 1990s tourist boom Bedouin traders routinely came to their shops 110 with archaeological material. It was unclear in any of the interviews whether the Bedouin canied out the actual looting or whether they only acted as the go-betweens- moving the material from the PA to Israel. The looting and movement of archaeological material is a traditional activity that has proven to be very rewarding for the Bedouin of the region. Similar to the huaqueros of Peru discussed by Smith (2005), the Bedouin often view looting as a vocation, one that runs in families. Younger tlibal members are tt·ained in an apprenticeship-type setting by other family members through a process of shared knowledge. Many Bedouin have worked as labourers on archaeological excavations and much of their experience is utilised when searching for archaeological sites and mtifacts. Through my research it became apparent that many looters do not understand the rationale behind archaeological practice. As a result looters come to view archaeologists as looters themselves, but looters who operate above the law. Or as Smith (2005: 165) asks "is archaeology simply the public face of looting?" as it is considered by many of the local population in Peru. Migliore (1991) and Thoden van Velzen (1996) witnessed 109 Professor Eshel of Bar Ilan University was recently anested and released for failing to repmi the discovery of such a monumental find to the proper authmities, a direct violation of the 1978 Antiquities Law. Initially in his own defence, Professor Eshel stated that he was saving the scrolls for the people of Israel because the Bedouin put glue on the scroll. As pa1i of this investigation three Bedouin were a nested for illegally selling antiquities (Lefkovits 2005c). For additional discussion of the Eshel case see Chapter 7. 110 Dealers in the Old City were traditionally visited by the Bedouin on Saturdays the biggest market day of the week. 63 similar sentiments in both Sicily and mainland Italy, where local looters, who did not really understand the process of archaeology, questioned the motives of archaeologists, · who come, excavate, find atiifacts, and then take them away from the area where they are never again seen by the local population. Various accounts of the relationship between archaeology and the local population have stressed that communication between professional archaeologists and local groups is virtually non-existent (Luke and Kersel 2005, Thoden van Velzen 1996). "Artifacts represent money and power to archaeologists and att historians" assert the Italian tomb robbers interviewed by Thoden van Velzen (1996), "that is how they make their upper-class living." In many examples of the traditional practice of looting, the locals cannot help but wonder if the attifacts recovered in scientific excavations also end up in the antiquities market. In his examination of archaeological looting in Sicily as a deviant activity, Migliore ( 1991) states that "the local people (Sicilians) regard treasure hunting as an acceptable way of improving their financial status; they do not identify treasure hunters as criminals." The same is true of the Bedouin communities in Israel and Jordan, looting is as a dependable source of income for the Bedouin whose income is never secure (French 1999). iv) Looting as Resistance In the last form of looting identified in the region, that of resistance, looters make a conscious decision to prioritise the destmction of the Jewish/Israeli past over the preservation of the Palestinian heritage. In her treatment of the looting of antiquities in Israel and the PA, Abu El-Haj (200 1: 255) suggests that looting "could well be analysed as a form of resistance to the Israeli state." By pillaging archaeological sites that are thought to be associated with a Jewish claim to the land, Palestinian looters feel they are erasing the association, when instead they may be eliminating their own material connections to the past. Lowenthal (2005: 394) in his explanation of the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage states "Heritage is destroyed and uprooted precisely because [emphasis Lowenthal] it shores up enemy will and self-regard ." Destroying sites with Israeli (Jewish) associations bolsters local perceptions ofPalestinian self- determination. ·64 In repeated interviews I was told that one of the motivating factors of looting was a resistance to the Israeli occupation and subjugation of the Palestinian people (Archaeologists 9, 11, 21; Dealers 1, 2, 3, 46; and Government Employees 10, 14, and 15). In a 200 I article on looting it was repmted that "for Ahmed [a pseudonym] and other Palestinians, grave robbing, like everything else in the Middle East, also has a political angle. Some in the P A are wonied that the pillaging is erasing whatever evidence exists to buttress Palestinian claims to the land" (Ephron 2001 ). Interviews with Palestinian archaeologists and government employees confirmed that the Palestinian looter does not identify the material remains as his or her past but as an Israeli past, and it should therefore be eradicated (Archaeologist 19, Government Employees 12, 13, and 14). Frustrated by the situation in the PA- the economic conditions, the construction of the separation wall- Palestinians have tumed to an everyday fmm of resistance, the looting of archaeological sites. In Weapons of the Weak, Scott (1985: 29) suggests that peasant rebellions are very rare and instead the weapons of the powerless group include: "foot dragging, dissimulation, false compliance, pilfering, feigned ignorance, and so forth ." Looting of archaeological sites as a form of shuggle meets many of the ctiteria of resistance, requiring little coordination, it can be an individual pursuit, and typically avoids any confro!ltation with authority (either Israeli or Palestinian) (Scott 1985). Palestinians looting archaeological sites with the express purpose of destroying the Jewish/Israeli claim to the past are defending the Palestinian interest. In a fascinating interview with Govemment Employee 9 a discussion on the issue of looting as resistance provided some interesting insights: However since the I 967 occupation there has appeared a new type of destruction of our land, 1 by our own people. This is the most dangerous form of destruction as the people should be connected to their land and not destroying it. Some of the perpetrators !mew/know exactly what they are doing when they loot the land. As the Palestinians are still under the occupation they have turned to unusual forms of resistance as means of protest. One such way is illegal excavation in areas they consider still under Israeli control: Areas B and C. (See Map 3.4 outlining Areas A, B, and C) Area A where there is complete Palestinian control sees little or no looting as resistance. If looting occurs in Area A the looters are looking to make 65 money and earn a living. In areas B and C there are competing reasons for looting and therefore it is more prevalent in these areas: I. Looters feel that they' are digging up things that are essentially Israeli. By looting and destroying sites they are destroying the cultural heritage of Israelis not the Palestinians. They do not really see the relationship between the land and the Palestinians. 2. These looters realize that there is more money to be made ji-om artifacts with a Jewish or Israeli connection. The main job of the PA Minist1y of Tourism and Antiquities should be to convince the looters that there is an ancient connection between Israel and Palestine and that looting and destroying these sites is actually ruining their own cultural heritage. This type of looting also has an impact on the occupation. The Israelis just see the "stupid" Palestinians looting their own cultural heritage and use it as an example to show that the Palestinians don 't care about the land so they [the Israelis} should be the caretakers. (Govemment Employee 9) Looting as resistance is not only detrimental to the archaeological landscape but to global perceptions of Palestinians a group actively destroying their own cultural heritage. In their actions Palestinians ~ould be considered what Romey (2001) and others have te1med cultural tenorists. The region's unrest has ended the cooperation between Palestinian and Israeli antiquities policing efforts (Keyser 2002). Issues over jurisdiction 111 have increased the tensions between Israeli and Palestinian archaeologists and govemment employees mandated with protecting the cultural heritage. Severely under funded, the PA DOA cannot afford to police archaeological areas that are under Israeli control (Areas B and C) and Israelis do not travel to the P A often, hence sites under their jmisdiction are neglected and have become what one archaeologist (6) refen·ed to as Swiss cheese- dotted with looter's holes. Palestinian archaeologists and employees of the PA DOA, by not providing information on looting and the names of looters to the relevant authorities in Israel, can also pmiicipate in the resistance, albeit in a more passive manner. 111 Under the 1993 Oslo Accords the West Bank was divided into three zones: A, where the PA has the greatest authmity; B, where the PA had some limited authotity but Israel maintains a secutity presence and 'overriding security responsibility'; and C, under military occupation. It is in area C that the greatest amount of resistance looting takes place (Govemment Employee 15) . See Map 3.4. 66 .., .r • t ). According to Bator (1983: 16) the looting of archaeological sites is made possible by the fact that the countries (and in this case it is two states who cannot decide who is in charge of what) involved provide services for the protection and preservation of archaeological remains that are inadequately financed, poorly organised, and often corrupt. While I am not suggesting that either governing body (the IAA nor the PA DOA) are corrupt, both are chronically under staffed and under funded and as a result the policing of looting is not as successful as it could be. In addition, the region is simply too rich in archaeological resources to allow for adequate enforcement of existing laws . . 67 - In many interviews (Archaeologists 3, 6, 8, 19; Govemment Employees 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18; Miscellaneous 1, 4) it was stated that while looters (from either Israel or the PA) are aware of govemnient regulations protecting archaeological sites, they often disregard the law as a fmm of resistance against the authorities (either Israeli or Palestinian). As in the case of Sicilian looters, local people do not completely understand the rationale behind cultural heritage protection (Migliore 1991: 165). Instead they see the enforcement of protectionist laws as a redirecting of local wealth to foreigners (either tlu·ough foreign excavations or tourism) 112 • Looters from either state do not trust the govemment so they rely on an illegal system that rewards their activities, either financially or politically (by despoiling the archaeological heritage of Israel). Whatever their motivations for pillaging archaeological sites, looters are producing mtifacts to be sold in the legal market. But looting is not the only source of a1tifacts for the archaeological market in Israel. B. Deaccessioning Deaccessioning is the process of pe1manently removing art or mtifacts from a museum or private collection, usually sold to generate further funds for the museum, the individual, or the heirs of a deceased collector. Although an infrequent occunence, deaccessioning can and does introduce additional archaeological material into the marketplace. i) Museums In Israel, museums who wish to sell or otherwise transfer an antiquity, which is in the museum or in the museum's collections or to dispose of one of the museum's collections, only need to give advance notice to the director of the IAA (1978 Antiquities Law, Section 6 Article 26(a)). Tlu·ough this process artifacts legally enter the market place as museums sell collections to the local dealers. One dealer (Dealer 32) stated that he did all of his antiquity shopping in London and New York, meaning that he purchased the Levantine material for sale in his shop in Jerusalem outside of the region from auction houses who are consigned the deaccessioned material from museums or private 112 A statement echoed in the work of Hollowell-Zimmer 2004 and Thoden van Velzen 1996. 68 collections. While often championed by free-market supporters as a source of new archaeological material, the movement of material through deaccessioning is infrequent, collections held by public institutions are rarely deaccessioned (O'Keefe 1997: 12). ii) Private Collections Under Israeli law private collections of artifacts established before 1978 can be sold (either privately or publicly), thus legally entering the marketplace. Under the AL 1978 all private collections should be registered with the IAA. The IAA then makes a determination of whether any of the pieces in a patiicular private collection is a "special antiquity113". If the collector then attempts to sell an antiquity of special note they are stopped from doing so, otherwise they are free to sell their pre-1978 collection to whomever they please. I asked a representative (Government Employee 1 0) of the IAA if a person (like Moussaieff114) collected material legally after 1978 whether it would be possible to resell the material at a later date. Under the existing law the answer is yes, because the material purchased from a licensed dealer has been vetted by the IAA as not being of national impmiance and therefore can be exported and/or resold. In both examples a1iifacts recirculate in the legal market and theoretically the market is self- sustaining and regenerating as "new115" material that is continually being introduced to the market. However, over time the volume of antiquities moving betweeri collections and collectors should diminish if not replenished from other sources. C. Chance Finds There is a small percentage of archaeological material recovered through the process of chance finds -the result of agricultural practices, development and changes in land use (O'Keefe 1997: 12). In an assessment of the free-market position on the regulation of the market Brodie (2005: 1052) suggests that many believe that the market to all intents and purposes rescues chance finds. His asse1iion is suppmied in an a1iicle by collector Shelby White 116 (White 1998: 171-2) where she reaffirms the collector's role as saviour by stating that most atiifacts in the market are the result of chance finds. While it 113 An antiquity of particular national or scientific importance (AL 1978 Section 5, 24(a)) . 114 See Chapter 5 for fUJiher information on prominent Israeli collector Shlomo Moussaieff. 115 From ptivate collections and deaccessioned museum pieces. 116 See Chapter 5 for fUJiher discussion of the collecting practices of Shelby White and her husband Leon Levy. 69 is difficult to estimate how much of the market is comprised of chance finds, most national patrimony law has provisions which state that these chance finds should be reported to the relevant authoritym. D. Stolen Archaeological Material Looting is only one kind of theft of archaeological material. Theft of archaeological artifacts and architectural elements from museums, monuments, and buildings is on the rise. Quite simply, the theft of these types of material is relatively easy to commit and immeasurably profitable-a lethal combination (Kinderman 1993). Gerstenblith (2004b: 154) defines theft as "the taking of an object that is in the possession of an individual or institution with recognised legal title to the object." The sky-rocketing value of artifacts has made theft especially attractive to thieves. The theft of archaeological mtifacts has increased rapidly throughout the world because the objects are extremely valuable, easily hidden and transported, and the legal owner of the work is often difficult to identify (Collin 1993: 21). The theft of private material occurs when thieves rob collections, museums and institutions, whether public or private. Sophisticated crime rings have made theft even more pervasive and complex. For example, theft is often linked with the sale of drugs; --- narcotics dealers accept paintings as pmtial payment in drug transactions and then sell them at auctions to receive "clean money" (Olivier 1996: 632). Antiquities theft is facilitated through war, civil umest, or changes in social order, all of which may result in the absence of protective measures, which are often inadequate to begin with (O'Keefe 1997). 118 Recent examples of thefts from archaeological museums include the Corinth Museum, Greece, where in 1990 thieves broke into the Museum at the archaeological site of Ancient Cminth, and removed some 286 objects (Axarlis 2001) 119. In 1997 objects 117 The AL 1978 Chapter 2§3 states: "A person who discovers or finds an antiquity otherwise than in an excavation under a license pursuant to this Law shall notify the Director within fifteen days of the discovery or find." For further discussion of this provision in relationship to the recent chance find of some Dead Sea Scroll fragments and Hanan Eshel see Chapter 7 footnote 220. 11 8 See Chapter 8 for a discussion of the relationship between the illegal movement of archaeological artifacts, the launde1ing of money and tenorism. 119 In September of 1999 the Greek govemment announced the discovery of the majmity of the artifacts in Miami, Flmida where they had been smuggled into the US in crates of fish . 70 from the museum appeared in the Christie's Antiquities auction, and were purchased by Jerome Eisenberg of Athena galleries (who later returned the pots to the FBI). Thefts of · Egyptian antiquities from the Maadi Museum and the College of Fine Alis, Cairo in 2002 were recently spotted by an Egyptologist in the Bonhams auction catalogue of their October 2004 sale (Kamil2005) 120 . This type of theft is not confined to solely museums, recently churches and religious institutions in Central and South America and much of Europe, have now become the prime targets for thieves (Luke 2003). Whether they enter the next link in the commodity chain legally or illegally, there are atiifacts available for distribution to consumer. The previous discussion attests to the fact that taking home a piece of the Holy Land has been a long standing tradition. In the following chapter I will examine how the atiifacts get from the looters to the consumers. Through the middlemen, go-betweens, and dealers involved with the supplying of archaeological material to the legal market in Israel to the shops involved with the direct sale of the material. Also considered are the legal antecedents that established the precedence for a legalised trade in antiquities and the cunent legislation that allows this industry to flourish. 120 Bonhams removed the items from the sale and retumed them to the Egyptian Embassy in London (The Egyptian State Infonnation Service 2005). 71 CHAPTER FOUR DISTRIBUTION "If I wanted to go into the business of buying and selling antiquities, I could make a pretty penny" (Glueck 1968: 91). Once a1tifacts have been produced for the legal market (through looting, chance finds, deaccessioning by museums and private collectors, or stolen) they then enter the distlibution phase of the network. The movement of material is facilitated by a series of conduits through which the artifacts pass: the middlemen and dealers who physically move pieces from one location to the local and foreign venues where the legitimate sale of artifacts occurs. An examination of the efficacy of the legal market for antiquities in Israel requires an assessment of the underpinning historical legal antecedents, which sets the stage for the cunent situation in the region. The distribution of material not only depends on a legal framework, but also is reliant on the physical mechanism- the antiquities shop- that allows for the material to reach the consumer. In this Chapter, Section I provides an analysis of the development of the legislative efforts establishing a trade in antiquities, while Section II examines antiquities shop and iden~fies five key types of shops in the Holy Land. I. THE LEGAL BACKGROUND OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL The movement of ideas from one culture to another and from one period to another is fundamental to the intellectual and spiritual development of humanity (Prott and O'Keefe 1989: 8). Distribution of the tangible manifestations of cultural heritage is important as these are potent communicators of cultural traditions, hegemony, and a11istic inspiration. Bator (1983) reminds us that m1 (and mtifacts) can act as effective cultural ambassadors. But all ofthis movement is not always good; Prott and O'Keefe (1989: 11- 15) identify disadvantages associated with the movement of cultural material, including: deprivation of the local population, damage and destruction of sites and objects, loss of knowledge, loss of access to cultural material by the local people, an alienation from cultural traditions of the local populace, and the circumvention of government policies and laws. At times the beneficial aspect of the movement of material outweighs the detrimental elements and vice versa. There is an ongoing tension between movement and preservation and with increasing movement the potential hatm to the cultural objects also increases. This tension leads 'to a need for control of movement in the fom1 of national and international legislation- with some nations favouring unfettered movement and some enacting restrictive policies intended to virtually halt all traffic. Figure 4.1 outlines the chronology of the development of legislative effmis to protect cultural heritage in the Levant. LEGAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE TRADE IN ANTIQUITIES 1884 Ottoman Law of Antiquities (Turkey) 1912 Egyptian Law of Antiquities of 1912 1920 Antiquities Ordinance 1922 The Palestine Mandate of the League ofNations 1929 Antiquities Ordinance No. 51 1930 Antiquities Rules, February 1, 1930 1934 Antiquities Ordinance 1935 Antiquities (Enclosures) Rules 1948 Establishment of the State oflsrael (reinstitutes the AO 1929) The Gaza Strip (govemed by Egypt and the AO 1929) West Bank (govemed by Jordan and the AO 1929) 1966 Law of Antiquities, Provisional Law No. 51 (Jordan) (Repealed AO 1929 in West Bank) 1967 1967 War Jerusalem reunited annexed as part oflsrael Gaza (govemed by Israeli Military Occupation) West Bank (govemed by Israeli Military Occupation) 1973 Israeli Military Order no. 462 1978 Israel Antiquities Law 5738-1978 1986 Israeli Military Order no. 1166 1989 Israel Antiquities Authority Law 57 49-1989 1993 The Oslo Accords 1996 The P A bans the sale of antiquities 2002 Israel Antiquities Law Amendments 2003 5th Draft Cultural and Natural Heritage Law (Palestine) Figure 4.1 Legal Chronology of the Trade in Antiquities. The movement of cultural material in the Levant plays an impmiant role in how the area was, and continues to be perceived by the global community. In Israel, the transfer of atiifacts is facilitated by the AL of 1978, which established a licensed trade in antiquities, officially sanctioned by the government. The AL 1978 is predicated on earlier Ottoman and British Mandate legislation that also had provisions for the exchange of material through a licensed sale of archaeological material. A. The Ottoman Empire In 1516 the Ottoman Turks conquered Palestine, and the country was incorporated in the dominions of the Ottoman Empire. Under their jurisdiction Palestine was subject to the rules and regulations as set f01th by the Ottoman rulers. F01mal and informal tribute in the form of taxes and "booty" was demanded on a regular basis to be sent to the capital of Constantinople. Antiquities from the various parts of the Ottoman Empire were appropriated both as a means of control and subjugation over the conquered states but also as cultural capital, demonstrating to the West the power and influence of the Ottoman caliphs. With increased travel by citizens of various colonising powers, the Grand Tour, the 1ise of antiquarianism, and the introduction of scientific archaeology, the Ottoman rulers recognised a growing need for the protection of the cultural heritage of the vast areas of the empire. One of the first legislative attempts to protect the cultural material of the empire was the Antiquities Law of 1884 [ 1884 Law] 121 , which followed closely on the heels of several major European expropriations, including that of the Pergamum Altar (Marchand 1996: 201). The nineteenth century, dominated by curia collecting in which objects served as souvenirs of contact, was followed by a period of trophy collecting in which large collections of mtifacts became a tangible means of showing penetration, conquest, and domination (Schildkrout and Keim 1998: 21). The 1884 Law did not develop in response to local Turkish interest in cultural heritage, but rather as a measure to ensure that artifacts from the far-reaching Ottoman Empire (see Map 3.1, Chapter 3) remained within its boundaries. The primary drafter of this legislation, Osman Hamdi Bey, Director of the Imperial Museum, was concerned with filling the coffers of the museum with the splendours of the Empire, sending a clear political message to the West and potentially capitalizing on tourism to the area. 121 A copy of the 1906 translation of the Ottoman Law dated February 21 , 1884 is on file at the Palestine Exploration Fund Archive PEF/DA/MAC/399/9. 74 A national stake in the cultural heritage of the Empire was established as Chapter I Article 3 of the 1884 Law states: "all types of antiquities extant or found, or appearing in the course of excavation automatically belong to the state and their removal or destruction is illegal." According to Bordkey (1996), the nationalisation of cultural patrimonies was a reaction to the impelialism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when the subjects and citizens of western empires ransacked the monuments of less well- developed nations. The combination of the declining Ottoman Empire and the rise of western expansion was the major impetus behind the inclusion of a national ownership element in the law. Although cultural heritage was the propetty of the Empire, local Turks could still buy, sell, and exchange mtifacts within the tetTitorial boundaries, which stretched from modem day Tunisia to parts of Iraq (see Map 3.1, Chapter 3). The regulation of excavations and the expatiation of antiquities as outlined in the 1884 Law were also the direct result of the aforementioned factors. Under the 1884 Law all foreign excavators in the Ottoman Empire had to apply for permission to excavate and all antiquities recovered during excavation were to be transfened to the Imperial Museum in Constantinople (Chapter I Atticle 12) 122 . Excavators were only allowed to take casts and moulds ofthe mtifacts or, if the material was considered redundant or unnecessary for the museum collection, it could be exported. According to Shaw (2003: 116) "effmts to control the appmtionment of antiquities to the Imperial Museum and to foreign museums often depended on the latter's interest in promoting Ottoman cultural aspirations," thus using the artifacts in the political arena as indicators of power and influence. The Ottoman government also deployed the attifacts as cultural capital in the form ofbribes and gifts in order to forge political alliances and cultivate diplomatic relationships (Marchand 1996, Shaw 2003). Most of the provisions articulated in the 1884 Law seemed reasonable and the underlying presumption was to control the ultimate disposition and protection of the cultural heritage within the Ottoman Empire. In practice enforcement of this law was vittually impossible. The expanse of the empire was so great that the Ottoman 122 Decisions conceming the disposition of aJtifacts and whether redundant material was available for exp011 were made in the capital by the Director of the Impetial Museum. Once attifacts were determined to be non-essential to the cultural heritage of the Ottoman Empire, they were retumed to the excavator and/or landowner for study, analysis, or sale. 75 Government did not have enough officials to oversee and implement the various regulations of the 1884 Law and the inherent bureaucracy in the Empire delayed excavation permits for almost a year (Gibson 1999: 136). Excavators who previously had umegulated access to the finds from their forays into the fi~ld were extremely displeased with the new provision that all finds had to be vetted by the Imperial Museum (Bliss 1906: 309) prior to study and/or analysis. In an effort to curb the loss of cultural heritage from the Empire, Chapter I Alticle 8 of the 1884 Law specifically prohibited the wholesale exp01tation of attifacts without the permission of the Imperial Museum. Even with this provision, many foreign archaeological missions and locals transgressed the law almost immediately after its enactment (Shaw 2003: 129). A complex smuggling network, which included the region encompassing the modern states of Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, the PA, and Syria developed. Public awareness of attifacts as commodities and consumer demand played integral roles in the development of the legal and illegal trade. Under the 1884 Law a1tifacts accidentally recovered by a landowner entitled him to a share of the mtifacts' value. Thus the legislation imbued archaeological attifacts with an economic value that may not have previously existed. Those who recovered artifacts received financial compensation prescribed by law- the looter was rewarded. Gibson (1999: 137) states that ''the general feeling among archaeologists working in Palestine ptior to the British Mandate period was that the Ottoman law of antiquities [1884 Law] sound though it was in principle, practically gave free hand to the plunderers of ancient remains while at the same time placing serious impediments in the way of legitimate investigators." The Ottoman Antiquities Law of 1906 was pas.sed to strengthen the 1884 Law and to close many of the loopholes but there was still much movement of material within the Empire and disgruntled foreign excavators bemoaned a lack of access to their archaeological material. In the waning days of the Empire these initial attempts at regulating the movement and distribution of the cultural heritage of region would f01m the basis for much ofthe later and cunently existing legislation in Israel and the P A. 76 ' B. The Mandate for Palestine On December 9, 1917, in the final stages of World War I, Jerusalem (then under Ottoman rule) surrendered to the British forces. Two days later the victorious General Allenby, imaging himself as a returning Crusader (Reid 2002: 2), entered the Jaffa Gate, in Jerusalem's Old City (see Figure 4.2). Figure 4.2 General Allenby entering Jerusalem via the Jaffa Gate (Image from ) This act marked the end of four centuries of Ottoman domination and the beginning of thirty years of British rule. In 1918 an Antiquities Proclamation was promulgated, which noted the importance of the cultural heritage of the region. In July of 1920, the Mandate civil administration took over from the military and archaeologist John Garstang was ' 77 appointed as the Director of the Department of Antiquities for Palestine (Bentwich 1921- 1922) (see Map 4.1 for the extent of Palestine under the British Mandate). ' ' 1 OMilu ' \ 0 Kibrlt kn A'~ ... t .: • .... ~ .. _,., .. A." . . ' -T;;~NS.JO·R;;-~!"1·.' :,, A' ,.-;· .. , . .C. " r, -""' '"""'·'', ... , -<· A '· .... _ ...... _ .- ..... -. ~(·. ..···· /( -~ _...:; .... ' ,.(., ' ' ) / . .£_";,_ .. ' · "'"'· ·, ' Map 4.1 Palestine Under the British Mandate, 1923-1948 (Image from Segev 2000). As one of his first tasks as director, Garstang formulated an Antiquities Ordinance for Palestine. In drafting this ordinance Gibson (1999: 137) suggests that Garstang would have consulted and may have been influenced by the following documents: 1) the 1884 Ottoman Law of Antiquities; 2) a draft Law of Antiquities put together by the Organizing Committee of the British School in Jerusalem prior to 1920; 3) the Egyptian Law of Antiquities of 1912; 4) Sir Stanley Maude's Proclamation on Antiquities for Mesopotamia; and . 78 5) England's Ancient Monuments Act of 1913. In a report of his activities to the Palestine Exploration Fund, Garstang (1922: 58) stated that "the Antiquities Ordinance was based not only on the collective advice of archaeological and legal specialists, but embodied the results of experience in neighbouring countries." Consulting archaeologists, government officials, and the legislative efforts of the surrounding nations and using the 1884 Ottoman Law of Antiquities as a springboard, Garstang established an Antiquities Ordinance for Mandate Palestine vesting the ownership of moveable and immoveable cultural he1itage in the Civil Government of Palestine123 (that is the local indigenous govemment rather than the foreign occupiers). The enactment of this ordinance instituted a Depmiment of Antiquities [DOA] and an archaeological advisory board (comprised of representative of the various foreign schools in the area) 124, ensuring that the protection and oversight of the cultural heritage in Palestine was canied out locally rather than from a colonial capital (Gibson 1999). The primary goal of the ordinance was the protection of archaeological antiquities 125 and sites. The regulation of ongoing archaeological excavations was monitored by the Department of Antiquities, as was the sale of atiifacts. In response to criticisms of the earlier 1884 Law by archaeologists and tourists regarding the lack of access to archaeological material, a provision was included for the sale of material deemed "not required for the national repository" 126 . The Department was given permission by the High Commission to issue licenses for the trade in antiquities. In 1920 for the first time, a licensed trade in antiquities was regulated and overseen by a 123 Vesting national ownership of cultural matetial of the State in the Civil Govemment and not the present occupiers was a departure from examples of earlier antiquities law, which gave those in charge the power to make decisions over the disposition of the cultural hetitage of the region (see for example the situation of the Ottoman Empire and the disposition of the Pmthenon Marbles). 124 The Advisory Board, under the presidency of the Director of Antiquities, considered all archaeological matters of impmtance, and in particular applications for petmits to excavate. The existence and authmity of this Board acknowledges the intemational interests in archaeological work in Palestine. 125 Defined in the antiquities ordinance as (a) any object, whether movable or immovable or a pm1 of the soil, which has been constructed, shaped, inscribed, erected, excavated or otherwise produced or modified by human agency earlier than the year 1700 A. D., together with any pm1 thereof which has at a later date been added, reconstructed or restored ; (b) human or animal re~ains of a date earlier than the year 600 A.D., or (c) any building or construction of a date later than the year 1700 A.D. , which the Director may, by order, declare to be an antiquity (AO 1920, Pa11 I, A11icle 2 (I)) . 126 These decisions are made by the Director and the Advisory Board. 79 bureaucratic entity - the Depmtment of Antiquities. Article 21 of The Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations of 1922 fmther cemented the light to scientific access for nationals and foreigners by insuring access to excavations and archaeological research for any member of the League ofNations (Abu El-Haj 2001: 45). Scientific archaeological enquiry and the distribution of archaeological material took centre stage during the Mandate period, embodied in Antiquities Ordinance No. 51 of 1929 (Appendix 5). In 1929, Antiquities Ordinance No. 51 [AO 1929] was enacted by the High Commissioner for Palestine and according to Oyediran (1997: 31), the AO 1929 now fotms the basis for all current domestic legislation concerning protection of cultural heritage in Israel and the P A. Under this ordinance the buying and selling of a1tifacts is clearly spelled out stmting with a basic definition of ''to deal." " 'To deal' in antiquities means to engage in the business of buying and selling antiquities for the purpose of trade; and "dealer" means a person who is so engaged in that business." (AO 1929, Article 2(1)). Specific guidelines for obtaining licenses to deal in and expott antiquities are outlined in the ordinance and in the accompanying Antiquities Rules of 1930 [AR 1930]. Under Alticle 4 of the AR 1930 (Appendix 6): (1) Applications for licenses to deal in antiquities, and for the renewal of licenses to deal in a!!tiquities, shall be made in writing to the Director, Department of Antiquities, Jemsalem, stating the full name of the applicant and his business address. (2) A license to deal in antiquities shall not be granted for a peliod exceeding one year. Every such license shall expire upon the first day of April for whatever period it may have been originally granted. A fee of£ I is to be paid for each license. (3) A license to deal in antiquities shall be available for the person to whom it was granted, provided that upon notification to the Depa1tment of Antiquities of the death of the licensee and of the names ofhis heirs or representatives, such heirs or representatives may continue to act under the license for a period not exceeding one month stmted from the date of the death the licensee. ( 4) A license to deal in antiquities shall authorise the sale of antiquities only at a place specified in the license. (5) Any officer of the Department of Antiquities may at all reasonable times inspect the premises with reference to which a dealer 's license has 80 been granted, and the licensee shall give him all facilities for examining his entire stock of antiquities and shall fumish any inf01mation which he may require concemin~ such antiquities. (6) The licensee shall at all times upon demand produce his license to deal in antiquities to any officer of the Depattment of Antiquities. (7) If the exp01tation of an antiquity is prohibited under Atticle 16 of the Atttiquities Ordinance, 1929, and such antiquity is the property of a licensed dealer, he shall: (a) Inf01m any purchaser concerning this prohibition, and (b) Communicate to the Director of Antiquities the purchaser's full name and address in Palestine on the day of the sale. (8) The licensed dealer shall inform every purchaser of antiquities that it is necessary to obtain a permit to exp01t antiquities and shall exhibit prominently at his place of business, and draw the attention of purchasers to any Notice relating to the exp01tation of antiquities, which the Director of Atttiquities may supply for that purpose. (9) A license to deal in antiquities shall be revocable at the discretion of the Director of Antiquities if in his opinion the licensee has failed to comply with the tetms of these Regulations or has otherwise shown himself to be unfit to be a holder of such license. With the establishment of the AO 1929 and the associated AR 1930, the trade of antiquities was enshrined in legislation, the legacy of which is carried on in the cun·ent Israeli laws (Atttiquities Laws 5738-1978 and 5749-1989) 127 and in the draft legislation of the PA (5 111 Draft Cultmal and Natural Heritage Law 2003) 128• i) At·chival Evidence from the British Mandate Period At·chival evidence from the British Mandate period illustrates many of the problems and pitfalls associated with the implementation and oversight of the managed trade in antiquities in Palestine during the Mandate. As will be illustrated in later chapters (6 and 7) many of the problematic elements of the trade discussed in the correspondence and records of the Mandate Department of Atttiquities continue to plague the current licensed trade in Israel. 127 See Appendices I and 6 for full text of the laws. 128 See Appendix 8 for the full text of the Draft Legislation. 81 . Archival evidence129 from the period indicates that for the period April 1, 1930 to March 31, 1931 there were 23 licensed dealers from cities and towns throughout Palestine (Acre, Gaza, Haifa, Hebron, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Nazareth, Safad, Tiberias), with over halflocated in Jerusalem (52%) (IAA Archives ATQ 91). In a letter from a dealer, granted a license from the Depattment of Antiquities, he requests a record book for the registration of his inventory (Letter dated December 17, 1930: IAA Archives A TQ 91 ). Under the AR 1930 dealers were required to keep an inventory of their shop in a registry book, accessible to Inspectors from the DOA on demand. 130 At any time the register could be checked against the existing inventory and any infringements could result in the revocation of the dealer's license. The archive contains a letter from the family of dealer Iskander Said, who in compliance with the legislation notified the DOA of his death. In the same letter they requested to be allowed to continue on with the business (Letter dated October 21, 1930: IAA Archives ATQ 91). In reply the DOA states: "Under Section 18 ofthe Antiquities Ordinance of 1929 Mr. Said's heirs are not entitled to· act under his license" (Letter dated October 23, 1930: IAA Archives ATQ 91). Later letters show that the license was rescinded to the DOA and a subsequent application to deal in antiquities was sought for the heirs of Mr. Said (IAA Archives ATQ 91). Fmther archival evidence depicts the Depattment of Antiquities in canying out inspections of the various dealers. In a letter dated April 10, 1930 to the Director from the Inspector of Antiquities he states: "In accordance with your instructions I have inspected all dealers' shops in my district and withdrawn all invalid licenses. Have also inspected all ofthe dealer's stock and registers and would make observations regarding registers as follows: Haj Abd el Hamid al-Afghany keeps his register in fairly good order, giving in most cases the provenance and names of the venders. Mr. Attulah et Tarazy from Gaza, although giving provenance ignores in most cases the venders. Faidi Eff. Silchy does not use names in his register at all and his dealings in antiquities being thus obscure." (Letter dated April 10, 1930: IAA Archives ATQ 91). 129 Archival evidence is comtesy of the Israel Antiquities Auth01ity. 130 The checking of dealer registers is discussed in Chapters 6 and 7 as pmt of the examination of lA A oversight of the cunent legal trade. 82 Recent evidence from ethnographic interviews (Dealers 1, 2, 8, 14, 15, 27, and 49 Government employees 1 0 and 18) confi1ms that cunent IAA inspections of shops displayed similar results of falsified registers and inadequate dealer inventories. 131 In a letter dated January 20, 1929 from the Chief Immigration Officer to the Director of Antiquities regarding the licensing of dealers states that: "There is [sic] a number of persons in Palestine who have either entered the country as travellers and remained or who are otherwise in the country without permission. It may be that some of these apply from time to time for licenses to deal in antiquities. As it is desired to regularize the position of these people, it is asked that licenses not be granted to them unless (a) they can show that they were resident in Palestine before the 1st of September 1920, the date of the first Immigration Ordinance or (b) they can show by means of certificate of citizenship or naturalization by this Section or Palestinian passp011 that they are Palestinian citizens or (c) they can produce a certificate of registration as an immigrant either stamped on their passp011 or otherwise." (Letter dated January 20, 1929: IAA Archives ATQ 91). This added another dimension to the bureaucratic practice of licensing dealers in antiquities, the monitoring of illegal immigrants to Palestine. The archives of the IAA also contain information about the screening, regulation, and movement of archaeo1ogical material in Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan. Similarly, the current oversight of the legal trade in Israel includes the monitoring of the movement of archaeological material across the various borders of the modem state of Israel. Conespondence between June of 1935 and March of 1942 follows the escapades of Mr. Alexander Rosh (alias Holovtchiner), a government officer in the Palestinian Department oflmmigration and Statistics who was in the habit ofvacationing yearly in either Egypt or Syria. As Mr. Rosh was an employee of the Mandate Government his baggage would not be searched as a matter of comtesy. 132 In a letter from a licensed dealer in antiquities named T. H. Kalemkarian on June 22, 1935 toR. W. Hamilton, the acting director of the Department of Antiquities, he outlines how Mr. Rosh on various occasion approached 13 1 See Chapter 7 for fUJiher discussion. 132 This use of diplomatic immunity in the intemational movement of archaeological matetial is discussed in Chapter 6 and echoed in the work of Staffan Lunden (2004). In his recent testimony in the fraud trial associated with the lames Ossuary, collector Shlomo Moussaieff testified that he used a diplomatic pouch to smuggle matetial out ofTel Aviv to London and other areas of Europe (Shanks 2005c). 83 him with antiquities from Egypt. Ensuing conespondence between the DOA and the Service des Antiquities in Cairo acknowledges that Mr. Rash did indeed exp01i antiquitie's from Egypt, with pennission,' but as an unlicensed dealer in Palestine he was in breach of Section 10 of the Antiquities Ordinance of 1929 (Letter dated July 26, 1935: IAA Archives A TQ 91 ). Nothing fmiher occurs until a series ofletters from 1941-1942 indicate that Mr. Rash has moved his operation to Syria. In a letter from Hamilton to the Deputy Inspector-General ofthe Criminal Investigation Depatiment it is stated: "One of my Inspectors was informed recently by an antiquities dealer in Beimt that Mr. A. Rash of the Department of Immigration is still trading in antiquities between Syria, Palestine and Egypt, without always obtaining the licenses that are required by each of those countries. Mr. Rash is not a licensed dealer." (Letter dated November 7, 1941: IAA Archives ATQ 91). By March of 1942 the Palestine Criminal Investigation Depatiment had collected letters between Mr. Rosh and a dealer in Beimt, which confirmed Mr. Rash's guilt. There is also correspondence documenting the DOA's triumph in successfully putting an end to Mr. Rash's illegal activities (IAA Archives ATQ 91). A number of letters (IAA Archives ATQ 20) from between 1928-1947 indicate the DOA was heavily involved in monitoring the movement of illegal antiquities from Syria to Palestine. The final piece of conespondence (Letter dated November 12, 1947: IAA Archives ATQ 3/20) between the Palestine Police and the Depa1iment of Antiquities indicates that some suspects had been identified: "I refer to your letter dated 29 September, 194 7, regarding the illicit imp01iation of antiquities from Syria. 2. Mohamed Abdul Rahman Saleh is a native of Silat-Ed-Dahr village in the Jenin Sub-District but resides with his son Imrawah in Suk El Catmel, J affa. It is known that Mohamed makes frequent visits to Syria. 3. I am informed by that Mohamed, together with Abdul Majid Haj Mohamed and Diad Kassem of Silat-Ed- Dahr village, are implicated in the smuggling of ancient coins from Syria into Palestine when these a1iicles are in demand for use as adornments by Bedouin and Fellahin women." (Letter dated November 12, 1947: IAA Archives ATQ 3/20) Until the very end of the Mandate Govemment the protection of cultural heritage is evidenced by on-going investigations into rep01is of smuggling of illegal antiquities. 84 The examination of the British Mandate DOA archival material provides some record of the day-to-day management of the trade, the illegal and legal elements of the trade, the monitoring of regional and intemational movement of archaeological mate1ial, and the use of diplomatic status to facilitate that movement. These characteristics outlined in the archival records act as harbingers of potential problems, drawbacks, and successes associated with a legal trade. Theoretically this evidence would have been (and still is) available to the drafters of relevant cultural heritage protection legislation and may have aided in determining which miicles of the AO 1929 and AR 1930 to retain and which to omit from future legislative eff01is. 133 Additionally, the archival evidence sets the stage for confirmed problems with the legal market, illuminating the weaknesses in the legislative legacy that are canied on until today in the laws of Israel, Jordan, and the PA. In the post-WWII period and after continued intemal revolts in Palestine, the British withdrew from the region. The United Nations attempted to mediate between the Jewish and Arab populations of the region and as a result formulated the 1947 partition plan. This consisted of a two state solution with Jerusalem under intemational rule. Although Jews acceded to the UN plan, Arab populations of Palestine and neighbouring Arab states were disinclined to accept. In May of 1948 the state of Israel was established and a full-scale war broke out between Israel and the surrounding Arab nations . In the afte1math of the war the Gaza Strip came under the control of Egypt and the area known as the West Bank and part of Jerusalem were administered by the nascent Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. This partition of the region resulted in three legislative efforts goveming the protection of the cultural heritage, albeit all based on the AO 1929. I C. The Post 1948 Period- The Gaza Strip and the West Bank In the period immediately following Israeli statehood and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the AO of 1929 remained as the primary cultural heritage legislation goveming the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Israel. In the early days of statehood (see Map 4.2 for the extent of post 1948 Israel), Israel kept in place most of the legislation enacted during the Mandate period in order to ensure a continuous legal framework to aid in nation building. 133 See Section D of this chapter for a discussion of the development of AL 1978 and the elements of AO 1929 and AR 1930 incorporated in the law. 85 Altldlltl/1."~11<'311 ::>'tl.~ EGYPT Agreement, 1949 oou•liil llir:tdlone O tsru:IW!dJ.n. .. E) Art.t.Unckt Eqwtitr1 Control o ol.nau-.dtr..lonflnConlrol U IJllto aba Map 4.2 Map of 1948 Statehood (Image from ). ' The Law and Administration Ordinance (No. 1 of 5708-1948) oflsrael reaffirmed the AO of 1929 as the legislation governing cultural heritage protection. In the Gaza Strip the AO 1929 remained in force as it did under Jordanian oversight in the West Bank. In all three areas the trade in antiquities remained illegal unless the dealer obtained a license from the respective director of the relevant departments of antiquities. Similarly the export of any antiquity was also prohibited without the approval of the director the department of antiquities in each of the three areas. In the West Bank the various provisions and regulations in the AO 1929 remained in place until 1966 when Jordan repealed the ordinance replacing it with the Temporary Law no. 51 on Antiquities (1966). This statute, which forms the basis for the 5th draft on Palestinian Cultural Heritage Legislation currently under review, is very similar to the AO 1929 with very few modifications. This law declares that antiquities are considered the property of the state, rather than vesting their interest in the Civil Government of the time, as was the case under the AO 1929. The provisions for the export and dealing in 86 antiquities are almost identical to the AO 1929 (Oyediran 1997: 34), although the fines and penalties for criminal offences are substantially increased. Since 1967, the West B~mk and the Gaza Strip have been subject to an occupying military government, with military commanders in each area empowered with administrative, governmental, and legislative powers (Cavanaugh 2002-2003: 942). These powers were executed tlu·ough a series of Military Orders, two of which directly affected cultural heritage. In 1973, the Israeli occupation authorities in the Gaza Strip introduced Military Order no. 462 (1973). The order forbids the sale or transfer of any antiquity to a person who does not reside in the Gaza Strip, without permission from the director of the department of antiquities of the occupying power, in this case Israel. Permission might be granted with respect to a class of objects (Article 1) and the order created a new criminal offence for anyone violating this provision. As they were directed under the AO 1929, dealers in antiquities are required to keep a register of the items in each shop and failure to comply results in a financial penalty. In 1986 the Israeli occupying forces introduced another military order (no. 1166) this time concerning antiquities in the West Bank. This order amended the Jordanian Temporary Law no. 51 on-Antiquities of 1966 and authorises the Israeli antiquities staff officer for the West Bank to exercise most of the regulations contained in the Jordanian Law. In order to expm1 any antiquities from the region (i.e., the West Bank) permission must be granted by the antiquities staff officer (Military Order No. 1166 1986: Article 7). An interesting element in each of these military orders (no. 462 and no. 1166), covers the expm1 of antiquities, which now requires a permit from the occupying authority. Previous legislation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (AO 1929) required that an expm1 permit be obtained for each individual attifact rather than a blanket expm1 license as is required under the new military orders, effectively weakening the laws (Oyediran 1997: 38). The provisions of these military orders may thus actually facilitate the movement of archaeological material across the borders; with the enactment of the broad blanket export licenses, for eventual sale in the legal market in Israel. D. Israeli Legislation After years of discussion and wrangling an Israeli antiquities law was finally enacted in 1978 (AL 1978)134. An examination ofthe IAA archives uncovered correspondence conceming the drafting of legislation and the long process of negotiation in order to anive at an antiquities law that satisfied most of the actors in the antiquities network (Israel Antiquities Authority ATQ 16/37). During the development of the national law, archaeology in Israel experienced a metamorphosis from national hobby to a tool for enhancing social solidarity and establishing national sentiment and allegiance. Archaeological focus shifted from questions of chronology and typology to questions regarding larger inquiry of trade relations, social complexity, and the political structure of past societies. Emphasis was on scientific endeavours seeking to add to the global discussions of archaeological method and theory (Gopher, Greenberg, and Herzog 2002: 192). Simultaneously people like Teddy Kollek and Moshe Dayan (both active collectors) were in positions of political power acting on behalf of the dealing and collecting communities to ensure that the traditional enterprise of dealing in antiquities be allowed to continue, and in fact, to be sanctioned by the government through new heritage legislation. The drafting of cultural heritage legislation by both the Israelis and the Palestinians is influenced by a variety of interest groups and stakeholders concerned over the disposition of the material culture of the respective states. Teddy Kollek, the mayor of Jerusalem from 1965-1993 worked strenuously to develop Jerusalem as a cultural, economic, and social centre of the nascent state. In the 1970s, an avid collector of archaeological material, Kollek lobbied Knesset 135 members on behalf of the long- entrenched (to which the previous section attests) dealing and collecting communities to ensure a provision for a legal market in the new antiquities legislation (Biran 1999). Moshe Dayan 136, who retired from the Israeli Defence Forces in 1959, went on to a life in politics as an elected representative in the Knesset. During debates over the pending cultural heritage legislation Dayan, also a consummate collector and supporter of the 134 See Appendix I for the full text of AL 1978. 135 The Israeli Parliament, consisting of 120 members elected every four years. 136 See Chapter 5 for a profile of Moshe Dayan as a collector of Near Eastem archaeological mate1ial. trade in antiquities, used his political influence with colleagues to gamer support for the legal market provision. Simultaneously during this period ( 1960s-1970s ), wealthy Israelis, Palestinians, merchants, foreign academicians 137 intent on building study collections for their respective institutions all voiced their support for the licensed trade in Israel (Biran 1999) 138. A similar pattem regarding the influence of stakeholders in the drafting of Palestinians legislation is evident from the analysis of the cunent draft legislation in Palestine, discussed later in this chapter. Chapter four of the AL 1978 (Chapter 4§ 15-22) covers the dealing in and export of antiquities and bears remarkable resemblance to the AO 1929, but there are elements relating to the trade in antiquities that ensure its longevity: Licence 15. A person may only deal in antiquities if he is in possession of a licence therefore from the Director and in accordance with the conditions of the licence, which shall be prescribed by regulations. Place of Business of Dealer 16. (a) A licence to deal in antiquities shall indicate the place ofbusiness. It shall only be valid for that place and shall be displayed there in a conspicuous position. (b) A person shall not exhibit a licence which has expired. The new law provided definitions of collecting, collectors, and collections. " Duty to Keep Inventory 17. A dealer in antiquities shall keep an inventory in the manner prescribed by regulations. Revocation of Licence 18. (a) The Director may revoke a licence to deal in antiquities petmanently or suspend it for a period prescribed by him if the holder is convicted of an offence under this Law or the regulations made there under. (b) A dealer whose licence has been revoked or suspended shall be treated as a collector. Antiquity of National Value 137 Some foreign biblical scholm:s, seminmians, and archaeologists collected matetial for educational study collections. The origins of this practice are legislatively enshrined in the 1884 Ottoman law as discussed previously. 138 Avraham Biran was the director of IDAM from 1961 -1974, the petiod of much discussion leading up to the enacting of the AL 1978. I had the ptivilege of working with Dr. Biran at Tel Dan and at Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of the Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem and often asked him about his early work with the IDAM. 89 19. (a) The Director may in writing notify the owner or possessor of an antiquity that the antiquity is of national value. (b) Within three months of notification under subsection (a), the Director may request' that the antiquity be sold to the State. (c) (1) Where a person wishes to sell or othetwise transfer an antiquity of national value, he shall give advance notice to the Director. (2) Within three months of receipt of notice under paragraph (1 ), the Director may request that the antiquity be sold to the State. If the Director does not so request, the owner of the antiquity may sell or othetwise h·ansfer it after he or the possessor thereof has, in writing, communicated to the Director the name and address of the purchaser or transferee. (d) Where the antiquity is an integral pmt of a group of antiquities, the Director may only request as provided in subsection (b) or (c) in respect of the group as a whole. (e) Where the Director and the owner or possessors of the antiquity do not reach agreement as to the consideration, the court shall decide the matter. Presumption of Knowledge 20. Where a dealer in antiquities offers any mticle for sale as an antiquity, his plea that he did not know that the article was not an antiquity shall not be heard. Restriction as to Replica or Composite 21.( a) A person shall not sell or display for sale a replica or imitation of an antiquity without indicating thereon, in the manner prescribed by regulations, that it is not a genuine antiquity. (b) A person shall not sell an antiquity consisting of pmts of different antiquities - whether with or without supplements or additions - without indicating the composite character in the manner prescribed by regulations. Restrictions on Export of Antiquities 22. (a) A person shall not take out oflsrael an antiquity of national value save with the written approval of the Director. (b) A person shall not take out of Israel any other antiquity save with the written approval of the Director. (AL 1978 Chapter 4§ 15-22) Chapters five and six of the legislation (AL 1978 Chapter 5, 6) respectively outline the prescriptions for collecting and museums with regard to the protection of the cultural heritage in Israel. Unlike the AO of 1929 (Part II§5(2)), which provided excavation licensees incentive to find and rep01t archaeological material by providing financial 90 compensation, the AL 1978 abolished this provision, rescinding the fair-payment incentive (Berman 1987). By 1978, the 1970 UNESCO convention was a reality 139 and · global emphasis was swingin'g from umegulated collecting to more protectionist policies of the nations affected by illicit excavation of archaeological sites. What is interesting to note about the AL 1978 is that unlike AR 1930 Article 4(8) which requires each dealer "to inform every purchaser of antiquities that it is necessary to obtain a permit to export antiquities" it is not obligatory under the AL 1978. This omission of the requirement to infmm the purchaser results in the onus being on the sometimes na'ive buyer -leaving a loophole in the law, which is cunently exploited by dealers at every opportunity. The exchange of register numbers 140 was confitmed by dealers (1, 2, 4, 55, and 57), archaeologists (7, 9, 11, and 18) and government employees (2, 4, 7, 10, and 18). As a law the AL 1978 has been considered both progressive and regressive. Gopher et al. (2002: 193) note that during the 1970s when it was enacted, the AL 1978 legislation was considered fmward thinking, particularly in light of the requirement for full scientific publication of archaeological excavations (AL 1978 Chapter 3§ 12). Additionally, the AL 1978 no longer provided a monetary motivatio~ for excavators, essentially eradicating the "treasure-hunting" effect of previous legislative efforts. Contrary to the progressive understandings of the law, the AL 1978 creates a paradoxical situation whereby excavation without a petmit is banned, but provisions for a trade in archaeological material acquired prior to the enactment of the AL 1978 make Israel what has been referred to as a "collector' s paradise" (Gopher et al. 2002: 198). In conjunction with the military orders no. 462 and no. 1166, which potentially encourage the movement (with approval of the civil administrator) of material from the PA, this ironic situation ensures the perpetuation of the market in antiquities- there is a seemingly unending supply of archaeological material. In 1989 Israel passed another antiquities law, which established the IAA and articulated the various bodies associated with archaeological site protection (Antiquities 139 The 1970 UNESCO Convention entered into force Aptil 24, 1972. 140 The exchange of register numbers will be discussed at length in Chapter 6. 91 - Authority Law 5749-1989) [AL 1989] 141 • The preamble ofthe law states: "The Law of the Israel Antiquities Authority states that the IAA is the organization responsible for all the antiquities of the country, including the underwater finds. The IAA is authorized to excavate, preserve, conserve and administrate antiquities when necessary." (AL 1989: Preamble). Chapter four §25-26, establishes inspectors and gives them the right to conduct searches of suspected offences against the AL 197 8. Out of this provision for inspectors developed the anti-theft unit, whose purpose is to oversee the licensing of private antiquities commerce. The anti-theft unit ensures that impm1 and licensed export are permitted in accordance with conditions of the Law and its regulations. This unit of the IAA is responsible for inspecting commerce in antiquities (IAA 2005) 142. In 2002 amendments were made to the AL 1978, which included some new directives for dealers in antiquities. 143 Added to AL 1978 were the statements: Chapter 4§20 Presumption of Knowledge 20A: "An antiquities dealer shall not acquire an antiquity except from one of the following: (1) An antiquities dealer; (2) A person who holds authorization from the Director in accordance with the regulations of paragraph 25, unless that person is not obliged to provide notification in accordance with the regulations of this law. ' (Antiquities Law Amendments 2002) This ensures that unless the Bedouin traders who routinely visit the antiquities dealers in Jerusalem's Old City are licensed dealers their transactions are entirely illegal. Amendments were also made to the export of antiquities which theoretically close the loophole of exporting material from the PA: Chapter 4§20 Restrictions on export of antiquities 22A. (a) A person may not bring into Israel an antiquity from the region unless he has received approval to do so from the Director and in accordance with the conditions of the pemussion; this permit can be 14 1 See Appendix 7 for the full text of the Antiquities Authority Law 5749-1989. 142 For fll11her discussion of the structure and practice of issuing expm1licenses and the trade in antiquities see Chapter 6. 143 The 2002 Amendments are on file with the IAA . 92 Authority Law 5749-1989) [AL 1989] 141 . The preamble of the law states: "The Law of the Israel Antiquities Authority states that the IAA is the organization responsible for all · the antiquities of the country,· including the undetwater finds. The IAA is authorized to excavate, preserve, conserve and administrate antiquities when necessary." (AL 1989: Preamble). Chapter four §25-26, establishes inspectors and gives them the right to conduct searches of suspected offences against the AL 1978. Out of this provision for inspectors developed the anti-theft unit, whose purpose is to oversee the licensing of private antiquities commerce. The anti-theft unit ensures that impmt and licensed export are permitted in accordance with conditions of the Law and its regulations. This unit of the IAA is responsible for inspecting commerce in antiquities (IAA 2005) 142• In 2002 amendments were made to the AL 1978, which included some new directives for dealers in antiquities. 143 Added to AL 1978 were the statements: Chapter 4§20 Presumption of Knowledge 20A: "An antiquities dealer shall not acquire an antiquity except from one of the following: (1) An antiquities dealer; (2) A person who holds authorization from the Director in accordance with the regulations of paragraph 25, unless that person is not obliged to provide notification in accordance with the regulations of this law. ' (Antiquities Law Amendments 2002) This ensures that unless the Bedouin traders who routinely visit the antiquities dealers in Jerusalem's Old City are licensed dealers their transactions are entirely illegal. Amendments were also made to the export of antiquities which theoretically close the loophole of expmting material from the PA: Chapter 4§20 Restrictions on export of antiquities 22A. (a) A person may not bring into Israel an antiquity from the region unless he has received approval to do so from the Director and in accordance with the conditions of the permission; this permit can be 14 1 See Appendix 7 for the full text of the Antiquities Auth01ity Law 5749-1989 . 142 For fUJiher discussion of the structure and practice of issuing exp01i licenses and the trade in antiquities see Chapter 6. 143 The 2002 Amendments are on file with the IAA . 92 personal or ,reneral and only if the general permit is publicized in Reshumot14 . (b) In this paragraph, "region" means each of the following: Judea and Samaria 145 and tlui Gaza Strip. (Antiquities Law Amendments 2002) Revisions and additions to definitions conceming collecting of antiquities were also made in 2002. The definitions of collectors and collections were expanded and the responsibilities of collectors were outlined: Chapter Five: Collectors of Antiquities and the Transference of Antiquities Notice to the Director 23. (a) A person who becomes a collector in accordance with the regulations of this law will submit a notification to the Director within 21 days ofbecoming a collector; the Minister, with the approval of the Education and Culture Committee of the Knesset, is authorized to determine the details of the notification and the procedure for its submission. Transference of Antiquities 25. (a) If a collector or a person who is not an antiquities dealer wishes to sell an antiquity or to transfer it in any other way, he shall notify the Director of such in advance; the Minister will detennine the details of the notification and the procedures for submitting it. (b) The Director will give the notifier confirmation of the submission of the notice as stipulated in sub-section (a) within 15 days of the day of its submission, unless the Director has notified the said person within this time that he demand that the antiquity be sold to the state because it is a special antiquity; when the antiquity is an inseparable part of a group of antiquities, the Director is authorized to make this demand only with regard to the group in its entirety. (d) The Minister, with the approval of the Education and Culture Committee of the Knesset, is authorized to determine the types of persons, of antiquities, or of sale or transfer of antiquities that will be exempt from the regulations in sub-section (a). Regularization of the Sale of Architectural Items 25A. A person shall not sell architectural items except with the permission of the Director; he will give his decision in this matter within 30 days of the day on which the request to sell the item is issued; the Minister will determine the details of the request and the procedures for its submission. (Antiquities Law An1endments 2002) 144 The Reshumot is the federal register of Israeli Laws. 145 The West Bank. 93- For the first time architectural elements are considered movable antiquities (from pre- 1978 collections) and are included as items that cannot be sold without the pemussion of the Director. The inclusion of this provision was enacted to combat the hefty trade in arcrutectural elements at garden supply stores. According to a Dealer (32) in the Old City: architectural elements are big sellers among native Israelis who like a classic capital in their garden and since they won't come into the Old City, these pieces are being sold elsewhere at places without licenses, which is unfair to us [licensed dealers]. Architectural elements, highly esteemed as garden statuary, were previously unregulated antiquities falling between the cracks of immovable and movable cultural heritage. E. Palestinian Legislation Following the Palestinian-Israeli agreement in 1993, Jeticho and the Gaza Ship were placed under the control of the PA; subsequently in 1994 and 1995 the PA was given jurisdiction of areas of the West Bank. Under the Oslo 11 Agreement there is to be a phased tr·ansfer of responsibility for archaeology from Israel ' s Civil Administration to the P A. Although not strictly part of the intemal domestic law of the P A, these agreements ·have serious implications for the protection of cultural heritage and the administration of archaeological sites (Oyediran 1997: 38). Under the tetms of the hand over, control of archaeology is linlited to areas under the teiTitorialjurisdiction ofthe PA (areas A and B, approximately 40% of the land (Taha 2002: 265) see Map 3.4, Chapter 3), meaning that Israel still maintains control of the adnlinish·ation of cultural heritage in some areas of the P A. 146 Under Alticle 2(3) of the Oslo 11 Agreement the PA is obligated to prevent damage and to safeguard sites. The PA must also ensure free access to archaeological sites, which are regarded as holy or wruch hold special archaeological value (Article 2(7)). No such reciprocal provision is expected of the Civil Adnlinish·ation and in some cases Palestinians are denied access to those sites in the PA under Israeli jurisdiction 147 146 I do not intend to discuss issues of jurisdiction or occupation. For in-depth coverage of these issues in relation to intemational cultural heritage conventions (specifically the 1954 Hague Convention) see Cavanaugh 2002-2003 and Oyediran 1997. 147 Incidents of this type were reported in vmious interviews- Archaeologists 7, 19, and 21 ; Govemment Employees 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14. In an examination of nation building and archaeologicalnanatives, Danielle Steen (2002) discusses issues of access and archaeological sites in Nablus and Bethlehem. 94 I ~ (Steen 2002, Taha 2002). However, both sides are to undertake steps to prevent theft from archaeological sites and to enforce prohibitions on illegal trading to prevent the movement of material from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to Israel and abroad (Oslo II Agreement §5.2). Furthering this goal, in 1996 the PA banned (Taha 2002) the legal trade in antiquities (a legacy from the AO 1929) in the areas under their jurisdiction, effectively putting dealers in Bethlehem, Hebron, Jericho, and the Gaza Strip out of business. Established in the early days of the Oslo II Agreement, the PA DOA inherited the vario\ls legislative efforts (AO 1929, Temporary Law no. 51 on Antiquities of Jordan, and the Military orders no. 462 and no. 1166) aimed at cultural heritage protection. In an effmt to combat any deficiencies 148, loopholes and contradictions in these laws, the PA DOA has drafted relevant legislation that "takes into consideration the scientific, legal and conceptual development of archaeology to the present time" (Taha 2002: 266). The focus of the new law (5th Draft Cultural and Natural Heritage Law 2003), is both the cultural and natural heritage (See Appendix 8). One of the major differences between this draft legislation and previous laws is the definition of cultural heritage: "Movable and immovable Heritage of historical, architectural, archaeological, religious, at1istic, aesthetic, ethnographic,_documentary great significance (national Heritage) or serious significance (local Heritage), which are more thanfifiy years old'' [emphasis mine] (5th Draft Cultural and Natural Heritage Law, 2003 Article 1: definitions). This affords protection for Ottoman period antiquities previously ignored and disregarded. Moreover, this expanded definition of movable cultural heritage may include ethnographic material: "objects associated with Palestinian cultural heritage, archaeological objects, natural science objects, objects of applied science or technology, objects of fine and decorative atts, objects of documentary Heritage, manuscripts, coins, and title deeds" (5th Draft Cultural and Natural Heritage Law, 2003 Article 1: definitions). Although strengthening some aspects of cultural heritage protection, the draft legislation is unclear on issues of national patrimony and the legal trade in antiquities. 148 None of the previous legislation deals with ethnographic material and periods post-dating the 1700 CE benchmark date. 95 - ' Article 3 -Objectives of the Law states "This law aims at enhancing and ensuring the protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage in Palestine which belongs to the Palestinian people, in full respect of private ownership" [emphasis mine] (5th Draft Cultural and Natural Heritage Law 2003: Article 3). This mticle is vastly different from the AL 1978, which states: "2. (a) Where an antiquity is discovered or found in Israel after the coming into force of this Law, it shall within boundaries fixed by the Director become the property of the State" [emphasis mine] (AL 1978 Chapter 2§2(a)). This leads to the question of whether the new cultural heritage law in Palestine is a national patrimony law149• Later Articles (7 and 8) covering private ownership, expmtation, and the trade in antiquities indicate that the private sale and ownership of cultural heritage is pemutted but with the permission ofthe PA DOA, although there appear to be some contradictions within the text (5th Draft Cultural and Natural Heritage Law 2003: Articles 7 and 8). Section Ill, Article 8 (Obligations to protect national Heritage for its cunent owners, possessors, holders and occupants) states: 1. Such Heritage can not be alienated (freely disposed of) and therefore traded. However, it can be transferred to the Palestine National Authorities; [emphasis mine] 2. Such Heritage is not subject to non-derivative acquisition through possession ("prescription acquisitive" in French) 3. Such Heritage can not be used in a manner, or for purposes, inconsistent with the Law 4. To ensure maintenance for proper conservation of such Heritage (National Authorities provide technical and financial assistance: to an extent to be defined) 5. Pe1manent expmt of such Heritage is prohibited 6. Temporary export of such Heritage is limited to 12 months, extensible to a maximum of 3 years where appropriate, for conservation or exhibition purposes. Exportation must be accompanied by a specific expmt ce1tificate. (5th Draft Cultural and Natural Heritage Law, 2003 Section Ill, Article 8). Arid later in the draft under Section IV A1ticle 10 (Obligations to protect local Heritage for its cunent owners, possessors, holders and occupants): 149 When I visited the Birzeit University Institute of Law, Ramallah, where many of the framers of the legislation are located, none was able to answer this question , stating that it was up to the President of the PA to decide what hetitage belongs to the state and what belongs to the private citizen. 96 1. Archaeological objects (definition to be provided in Article 1) can not be alienated (freely disposed of) and therefore traded. However, they can be transferred to the Palestine National Authorities; 2. Local Heritage is not subject to non-derivative acquisition through possession ("prescription acquisitive" in French); 3. The Commission shall put in place a trade authorization system in local cultural Heritage specifying the requirements, procedures, authorization fees, eligible persons, and establishing the registers of cultural Heritage authorized for trade. [Emphasis mine] 4. Subject to such prior authorization, which is granted on a year basis, renewable annually and withdrawn in case of violation of this Law, by the competent authorities where appropriate and with a pmticular view to avoiding its parcellisation, local Heritage may be alienated (freely disposed of) under the conditions that: 5. The owner informs the Commission about his/her intention to alienate or sell it, the name and address of the buyer, about it 60 days before the date of the sale. Othe1wise, the alienation or the sale may be void. In any event, the Commission reserves its priority right for the purchase of such Heritage; 6. Altistic pieces, old objects, numismatics, icons or any other Heritage items be accompanied with the relevant local Heritage certificate; therefore, in the absence of such a ce1tificate, the sale or alienation is void. 7. Local Helitage can not be used in a manner, or for purposes, inconsistent with the Law; 8. Obligations to ensure proper conservation of such Heritage (local branches of the Commission provide technical and financial assistance: to an extent to be defined); 9. Permanent export of local Heritage is prohibited. 10. Temporary exp01t of local Heritage is limited to a maximum of 5 years (?) for conservation or exhibition purposes (and other purposes where appropriate). Exp01tation must be accompanied by a specific export ce1tificate. (51h Draft Cultural and Natural Heritage Law, 2003 Section IV, Article 10) While the majority of the provisions are similar in the mticles, Section IV, Article 1 0(3) is most relevant to the questions under consideration in this thesis: is the P A considering a legal sale in antiquities within the borders of the PA and does the provision in Section IV, Alticle 1 0(3) leave the possibility open? During the course of my research I was told repeatedly (Archaeologists 7, 8, 10, 15; Government Employees 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 18; Miscellaneous 6) that the PA was considering a legal trade in antiquities within its teiTitorial boundaries. As previously indicated the sale of mtifacts and relics has been a way of life for many Palestinians families for centuries, many of whom moved their businesses to the Old City 97 . after the PA banned the ~egal sale of artifacts in 1996 (Dealers 18, 39, and 55). Of the sixty registered dealers, half (N=30) are Palestinian. Both Israeli and Palestinian dealers told me that some of their most i:egular clientele were wealthy Palestinians (either in the region or in the Diaspora) (Dealers 4-8, 11-16, 26-29, 32-34, and 46). The impetus to establish a legally sanctioned sale of antiquities comes from both the business and private communities in the P A 150 . The drafters of the legislation are convinced that the new law with the provision to trade in antiquities will ensure greater protection of the cultural heritage of the PA (Government Employees 13, 14, 15, and Miscellaneous 6). The quote introducing this chapter from rabbi-spy-archaeologist Nelson Glueck sums up the situation in a nutshell: "Ifl wanted to go into the business of buying and selling antiquities, I could make a pretty penny" (Glueck 1968: 91). These factors in tandem with other political forces may have resulted in the PA 's draft legislation, which includes an in-country trade provision that can be implemented at a later date at the discretion of the party in power. Until it was amended in 2002 (Chapter 4§20) neither the Israel Antiquities Law of 1978 nor the 5111 Draft Cultural and Natural Heritage Law 2003 prohibits the impmtation of mtifacts from other states. Such a provision might combat against the illicit movement of material between the two regions. Cooperation in the fonn of a bilateral agreement militating against the trade in illicit antiquities would go a long way in ameliorating archaeological site destmction in both Israeli and the P A. With the implementation of the AL 1978 the legally sanctioned sale of antiquities (from existing pre-1978 collections and inventory) became a bureaucratic entity with state oversight. The Section IV, Article 1 0(3) of the draft legislation of the PA leaves the prospect of a legal sale within the borders of the P A open to interpretation and future implementation. The entire enterprise of a legal sale still bears the imprimatur of the landmark 1884 Ottoman Law, the AO of 1929, and the AR 1930. Analysis of the British Mandate archival material indicates that the legacy of the AO 1929 and the AR 1930 was not all positive. Correspondence from the archives depicts associated predicaments and 150 Both interest groups (business and ptivate collectors) are in agreement that the legal trade should fall under the administrative duties of the PA DOA (Miscellaneous 6). Advocates for the legal trade in the PA argue that banning the trade will send it underground (a familiar refrain fi"om those supporting the free- market position). 98 . 11 hazards in the original Mandate ordinances that are now enshrined in the laws of Jordan', Israel, and may soon be a reality for the P A. The problems with management, oversight, policing, and archaeological site protection linger until today in the current manifestation of the trade in Israel. Despite myriad problems that may be associated with the trade, the distribution of archaeological material in the region is a long enshrined practice in the area and in Israel and the PA has become prut of the national identity. 11. THE ANTIQUITIES SHOP Currently there are sixty shops officially licensed through the IAA under the AL 1978 (some dealers have multiple premises and licenses). Each is unique but after a year of visiting the shops similar traits appeared which allowed for the designation of five basic types of antiquities shops (see Figure 4.3). Cl) 50 45 40 35 g' 30 ..... ~ 25 e 20 ~ 15 10 5 0 Types of Antiquities Shops - - - - - - - - - I - Art Gallery Tourist Shop Cabinet of Curiosities Museum Types Figure 4.3 Types of Antiquities Shops. 99 ~ Home Shop A. Types of Shops i) Antiquities Shop as Art Gallery The predominant form of antiquities shop identified was that of the stores, which distinctly resemble art galleries because of the similar display techniques used for exhibiting merchandise. The higher-quality, rarer artifacts are usually singled out and displayed in a manner befitting an art gallery; nice lighting, placed on a velvet background, with little or no contextual information displayed alongside the object. Other artifacts in the shop as art gallery setting are usually grouped with similar types (i.e., all ceramic lamps or figurines together regardless of period or original site location [if known]). Figure 4.4 Art Gallery Type of Antiquities Shop. Of the sixty establishments licensed in 2004-2005, 43% (N = 26) are art gallery-type shops, only five of which are located in the Old City; the rest are either in West Jerusalem or in other cities throughout the country. Clustered around expensive hotels and shopping precincts in the larger cities of Tel A vi v and Jerusalem, a few examples of this type of shop are located in hotel lobbies giving off the aura of exclusive boutiques, rather than humble tourist shops. Artifacts in these shops are, for the most part, objets d'art, archaeologically decontextualized. In the first instance they are presented as aesthetically pleasing pieces rather than dirty archaeological objects. The artifacts' associated histories, either of ownership, or archaeological site context are added bonuses for the purchaser. By virtue -- of the shop's location in Israel, the inventory is imbued with the associative value of the ' Holy Land. For the consumer patronizing this type of shop the artifact as the embodiment of art and beauty is of paramount importance. ii) Antiquities Shop as Tourist Shop The second most popular type is the tourist store (see Figure 4.5), which at first seems a contradiction in terms, as all shops selling artifacts may potentially be considered tourist venues. Figure 4.5 Tourist Shop Type of Antiquities Shop. The definition of tourist shops in this instance refers to a place that caters to tourists by selling a wide variety of items, archaeological artifacts being only one example of their inventory. The shop's sole purpose is not the selling of artifacts, but all of the trinkets and tourist tat associated with visiting the Holy Land. Alongside archaeological material are I~ floating Last Supper pens, postcards, fridge magnets, t-shirts, replica artifacts, vials of sand from the Holy Land, and water from the River Jordan. Ethnographic material such as Palestinian embroidery and olive wood carvings are also a mainstay of this shop's inventory. The majority of these shops are in the Old City and the main tourist thoroughfares of West Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. This type comprises approximately 23% (N = 12) of the antiquities shops in Israel. Archaeological material for sale in the tourist shop is usually the prosaic oil lamp, small pot or juglet, jewellery made from Roman glass 151 and the ubiquitous coin (see Figure 4.6). Most of the transactions in the tourist shop are less than US $100, and are usually between US $5 and US $20 (Dealers 8, 9, 12, 18, 31-34). Figure 4.6 Variety of material for sale in a licensed shop. 151 The sale of jewellery made from Roman glass or coins is unregulated under the AL 1978. Both licensed and unlicensed retail outlets catering to tourists sell these items, which are very popular with all types of low-end collectors. When I asked the director of the anti-theft unit Arnir Ganor about this situation (akin to the selling of architectural elements by garden supply stores), he explained that the monitoring of these sales and registers would be too great for oversight by the IAA, another example of antiquities that fall between the cracks of existing legislative efforts. 102 iii) Antiquities Shop as Cabinet of Curiosity In cabinets of curiosity shops, the visitor has the impression of being in his or her grandmother's attic filled with archaeological material, displayed in no particular order. The items for sale are often displayed in the original cardboard boxes that they arrived in. All of these shops (20% of the total, N = 14) are located in Jerusalem's Old City and many of them in the Christian Quarter or on the Via Dolorosa (see Map 4.3 for locations of various antiquities shops in the Old City). Artifacts are never labelled and are not systematically arranged, although in a few instances all of the same type of material is grouped together. Figure 4.7 Cabinet of Curiosity Type of Antiquities Shop. The vast range of items in the cabinet of curiosity shop represents all aspects of the religious history and archaeological time periods of the area. The great appeal of this shop is the assemblage of marvels that the low-end collector can experience in a single 103 ,~ visit (Mauries 2002). This shop requires an investment of time by the visitor in order to fully appreciate the diverse inventory offered for sale. ·' } l Map 4.3 . _, ,. , '*1 * i •j I * ...... .. i! - :··: \\ .··~-- \ -·- j Locations (blue stars) of Antiquities shops in the Old City. iv) Antiquities Shop as MtJseum I :: ' ' ~~ Shops with a museum character comprise just 10% (N = 6) of the total number of shops but they are often the most interesting and compelling for the visitor interested in the archaeology of the area. Archaeological material is often presented in chronological order and grouped, by period and then by artifact, employing a standardised system of 104 c Figure 4.8 Museum Type of Antiquities Shop (Image from ). classification. In one shop (Dealer 46) I was handed a timeline with the associated standard pottery types of each particular period in order to help guide me through the display. Once in this museum type shop, tourists take a guided tour through the themed displays and the tourist feels the familiarity of an authentic museum experience; assisted by the timeline, an educational element is added to the visit and further authenticates the ' experience (MacCannell 1976). In other examples of museum antiquities shops there are ethnographic dioramas depicting how a particular artifact would be used in antiquity. In most of these shops the artifacts are labelled clearly with information on their use, time period, and archaeological context. MacCannell (1976) asserts that the objects in the museum type shop have undergone a process of authentication, legitimation, and selection. Artifacts in a shop inventory are usually representative of a particular culture and/or religion (i.e., all of the pieces from the "time of Jesus" are grouped to together). v) Home as Antiquities Shop The final type of shop is located in the dealer's home, of which there are only two examples (4% of the total number of shops, N = 2). In each, the artifacts were stored in the basement of the house but laid out in display cases. Neither of these dealers publicly advertises that they deal in antiquities and business is only by referral or word of mouth. 105 , -......,... The material for sale in each of these establishments was higher-end unique or rare items for the discerning tourist, museum or high-end collector (see Chapter 5 for further discussion). B. Supplying the Shops with Archaeological Material Determining where the inventory of a particular venue comes from was probably the most difficult pmt of this research. The risk of alienating interviewees by suggesting that they were breaking any laws by selling tainted matelial was a constant sub-text or possibility during interviews and encounters. Proprietors of the mt gallery, museum, and home types of antiquities shops (Dealers 1, 2, 4, 9, 14, 20, 53, 55-57) were loath to talk about where their material originated. For the most pmt they stated that their inventories came from museum deaccessioning, fi:om auction houses in Europe and the US, from collectors, or the families of late collectors selling off the material 152 . They were outraged when I asked about the provenience of the material for sale and or when I asked about any movement of material from the P A or Iraq 153 . In the fall of 2003 I was in a toulist shop (not licensed to sell archaeological material) conducting research for a paper on the market for archaeological replicas (Kersel and Luke 2005), when the dealer recognized that I was very interested in the ~ . replicas he asked me if I wanted to see the real thing. He quickly reached behind the counter and took out a box of dirty Middle Bronze Age pots all of which, he assured me were the real thing and recently looted from sites in the P A. After numerous interviews with vmious shop owners I came to the understanding that they often buy recently looted material from Bedouin traders, middlemen and the like who drop by their shops on a routine basis. Some dealers resort to other illegal acts to increase their inventory, as was the case with one dealer (Dealer 36) of a cabinet of curiosity type shop. He routinely makes a1tifacts by piecing together various broken parts. Under the AL 1978 (Chapter 4§21(b)) this is illegal: "A person shall not sell an antiquity consisting ofparts of different antiquities- whether with or without supplements or additions- without indicating the composite character in the manner prescribed by regulations". A tourist 152 For an excellent example of this phenomenon see The Leo Mildenberg Collection of Ancient Animals (2004) sale by Christie's London in October of2004. At this sale (initiated by the heirs ofMildenberg) of p1immily Near Eastern matetial I saw some familiar faces from Jemsalem. 153 I asked about Iraq as a separate research interest, not for the specific purposes of this thesis. 106 · • (Collector 6) I interviewed related to me that they attempted to wash one of the pots purchased from Dealer 36. As soon as it was placed in the water the pot immediately broke into three pieces. An archaeologist friend examined the three pieces and determined that they were from three distinct pots that had been glued together to form a composite. When I asked whether the dealer (36) had been reported to the IAA anti-theft unit for violating the AL 1978, the collector stated No I didn't. I want to buy a few more pieces from him and I can use this as a bargaining chip to get a better deal on my next purchases. Despite this experience, the collector was confident that the next purchase made from Dealer 36 would be authentic. Whether the shop is in the lobby of a high-priced hotel or in the back alley of the Old City one of their purposes is the sale of antiquities. Each has to apply for, Figure 4.9 Antiquities shop in the Tel Aviv Hilton. pay a fee, and receive approval from the IAA anti-theft unit in order to obtain a license to deal in antiquities. In each case the licensed shop has to prominently display its license and must comply with the terms of the AL 1978. Whether they supply a "certificate of authenticity" is entirely up to the individual dealer but they must provide an export 107 certificate for any object they sell, if the purchaser requests one and licensed dealers have to keep track of their inventory via a register 154 . Theoretically a membei· of the IAA anti-theft unit can walk into any licensed shop at any time and ask to see the dealer register, which they can then check against the store inventory. In practice there is only one person assigned to monitor all sixty dealers tlu·oughout the country and this is only one of the duties of his tenns of employment for the IAA. This in combination with the heightened security risk for Israelis 155 in the Old City, results in fractured oversight and very few inspections being carried out. Even so shop proprietors (Dealers 1, 5, 8, and 26) told me that the !AA inspectors were a thorn in their side and could often be belligerent and confrontational. From many interviews with the IAA and dealers it is apparent that despite an ove1tlegal fa9ade of artifact registers, licensing systems, and regular inspections, there are cove11 aspects to the legal trade, as will be discussed in-depth in Chapter 6. The antiquities shop is a culturally defined lens through which the Holy Land is viewed (Shenhav-Keller 1995), and what each venue chooses to display and sell is a product of both consumer demand and available material culture. The object purchased is not only imp01tant as a cultural artifact but as a signifier of the complex social process- of memory, meaning, and past experience. Like the Jewish tourists to Irandescribed by Loeb (1978: 190), visitors to antiquities shops in the Holy Land are attracted by location, display of goods (both quality and variety), and sense of authenticity. But who purchases these artifacts and why? Chapter 5 examines both low-end collecting and high-end collecting and the relationship of consumption to the market for cultural material in Israel. 154 Inventories, registries, certificates of authenticity and dealer's responsibilities will be covered in Chapters 5 and 6. 155 A few years ago an inspector from the IAA anti-theft unit was attacked while on an inspection in the Old City. As a result is it now IAA policy that at least two people must go on all visits to the Old City. Inspections are only the assigned job of one person so it is very difficult to coordinate visits to dealers (Government Employee 18). 108 CHAPTER FIVE CONSUMPTION "On the next rainy day I shall walk down to my beloved Salzburg; the last time I was there I picked up a few old Egyptian things. Those things cheer me and remind me of distant times and countries." (Freud 1954: 291) To be as pervasive as it is, consumption156 is likely to serve multiple motives, and it is unlikely that we can dismiss it as something that is categorically good or bad. That is not the intent of this thesis. This research explores whether we can establish a causal relationship between the looting of archaeological sites (supply) and the consumption157 of archaeological atiifacts (demand). In order to answer this question and better comprehend the market and the desire for archaeological miifacts from the Near East it is necessary to understand the third component of Coe's model- that of consumption. This chapter focuses more on what motivates collectors 158 and in patiicular why do people want archaeological material from the Levant? Does this practice have any bearing on the archaeological landscape? I examine consumption as manifest in the collecting practices of the average tourist to the Holy Land, what I te1m the low-end collector and the practices of the high-end collector and ·their combined impact 159 on the market for antiquities. This chapter is concerned with WHY people collect; WHO collects Near Eastern archaeological material; HOW the process of collecting is canied out; and WHAT impact collecting has on the legal market and archaeological site destruction. What follows is a discussion of these aspects of demand and the looting of archaeological sites through the lenses of the low-end and the high-end collector ofNear Eastern archaeological material. 156 For the purposes of this thesis consumption refers to the acquisition of both low-end (to mist ninkets) and high-end (rare and unique pieces) archaeological artifacts from the Near East. 157 In this chapter consumption and collecting are used interchangeably- both meaning the acquisition of archaeological artifacts. 158 In the following discussion, collectors are broadly conceived and as a category include not only private individuals, but also museums, educational institutions , basically all who purchase artifacts. 159 By creating demand, collectors can actually direct the market setting the stage for what is looted and sold. This demand can also effect policy decisions as discussed in the drafting of cultural heritage legislation in Israel and the PA in Chapter 4. 109 I I. WHY- WHY Do PEOPLE COLLECT NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERJAL? Collectors may variously view themselves as connoisseurs, heroes, public servants, saviours, tourists, and harbingers of class. Many of the motivating factors affecting collectors of Near Eastern material echo the rationales for early archaeological practice in the region (see Chapter 3)- a desire to establish a connection to the land and the past through the material remains. The collector often attempts to recreate the past through the purchase of attifacts. The legal market in Israel is the mechanism by which the demand for archaeological material is met, whether it is a low-end or high-end purchase. Rather than simply criticise or vilify collectors (either low-end or high-end), I seek to situate them within their economic, political, and social contexts. The objective, then, is to analyse the motivations behind collecting rather than to describe collections, using specific examples drawn from a few of the more famous (or infamous) high-end collectors of Near Eastern material (see section liB) and through an analysis of the types of tourists frequenting antiquities shops in Israel (see section IIA). At the end of the artifact commodity trade chain is consumption: someone or something (a museum, an educational institution) creating consumer demand for the archaeological material. In the Holy Land generally consumers can be broken down into two broadly defined categgries: low-end and high-end. Low-end consumers are usually tourists, students and religious pilgrims to the area who want to leave with a small, rather inexpensive memento or gift of their trip. These keepsakes must meet the requirements of tourism, what Graburn (1976: 15) defines as low-cost, pmtable, dustable, and most importantly, understandable (see Figure 5.1 for an example of a tourist keepsake). For our purposes these souvenirs of the trip are what Gordon (1986) refers to as "symbolic I shorthand souvenirs"- those artifacts manufactured in the past, which evoke a message about the place or person from which they originate. Evocative significance is often of equal impmtance to the high-end collector in their desire to possess the past. High-end consumers are traditionally wealthy individuals, museums, and educational institutions willing to invest thousands of dollars for the highest quality pieces representative of a patticular period and place. While there are some fundamental differences in the way in which low-end and high-end collectors practice, the psychological and sociological factors affecting their acquisitions may be very similar- the WHY of collecting. 110 T Figure 5.1 Examples of tourist keepsakes. Most theoretical considerations of collecting (see Baekeland 1981, Baudrillard 1994, Belk 1995b, Clifford 1994, Danet and Katriel 1989, Eccels 1968, Ellen 1988, Formanek 1991, Gosden and Knowles 2001, Haraway 1985, Long and Schiffman 1997, Mclntosh and Schmeichel2004, Muensterberger 1994, Olmsted 1991, Pearce 1995, Pomian 1990, Rigby and Rigby 1944, Schwartz 2001, Stewart 1984, Storr 1983) agree that in the final analysis collecting is about control. This is just as true for low-end collectors of small tourist trinkets as the high-end purchasers of a unique incantation bowl. James Clifford (1986:238) states, "In the West, collecting has long been a strategy for the deployment of a possessive self, culture and authenticity." Clifford extrapolates that such an attitude is predicated on a particular view of owner-object relations as based on domination. The owner of the object is dominant and is imbued with power through ownership. For example, Israelis (Jews) buying artifacts looted from the PA assert their dominance over the collective cultural legacy through authority over the downtrodden 111 Palestinians, who have to resmt to looting as a means of economic survival. In Orientalism Edward Said (1978) accuses Napoleon's forays into Egypt and the Levant of being the quintessential model of scientific appropriation of one culture by another. Napoleon pmticipated iii what Schildkrout and Keim (1998: 30) refer to as trophy hunting in which large collections of mtifacts are a tangible means of showing conquest, domination, and penetration. For the low-end collector the act of purchasing an artifact in the marketplace is also conveys dominance over travel, leaving their known comfort zones for destinations and adventures unknown. The bought antiquity signifies a conquest over a distant land. By its very nature collecting is paradoxical. Simultaneously it is rational and inational; deliberate and random; cooperative and competitive; passive and aggressive; stressful and calming. It can evoke thoughts of self-worth and impmtance, while at the same time induce feelings of inadequacy when an opportunity is missed or a competitor is more successful. Studies have posited an assortment of interrelated motivations for the general concept of collecting ranging from the financial, psychological, sociological to the aesthetic and cultural. The motivating forces behind amassing items are varied, but can usually be divided between the psychological and sociological. A. Psychological Factors Motivating Collecting In 1921 French physician Hemi Codet (1921: 3) stated that "the medical compulsion for collecting is based on the need for possession, the need for spontaneous activity, the impulse for self advancement and a tendency to classify things". In examining the psychological aspects of collecting 160, Baekeland (1981) and Schwartz (200 1) discuss the fact that collectors see the collection as an extension of themselves. The collector uses his collection to enhance his own self-esteem. There is a clear distinction between accumulators who amass without rhyme or reason, connoisseurs who collect to acquire self-definition, and art-lovers, who are content to look at pieces and feel no need to own. Education, class, refinement and cultivation are implied by owning 160 The definition of collecting as employed by Baekeland ( 1981 ), Cod et (1921 ), and Schwmiz (200 1) is not limited to those who amass archaeological material but their analyses can be effectively applied to the present study. 112 . atiifacts. The appreciation of art (or artifacts)- what Bourdieu (1984) refers to as cultural capital - allows entry into other social spheres. Among the other alleged motivating factors to collect are acquisitiveness, need for immortality, vanity, competition, pleasure of buying and the fulfilment of an empty life (Baekeland 1981: 49-51 ). Objects become a source of comfmi and a way of identifying with a past, perhaps a more idealised time. As noted in the quote from Freud in the introduction to this chapter, a1iifacts can frequently be used to ward off despair, to combat loneliness, and to make the possessor feel better. For the high-end and low-end collector of Near Eastem atiifacts, the quality and rarity of possessions is a sure sign of quality and rarity as connoisseurs, as well as strength and conquest of competitors over objects (Schwa1iz 2001: 135). This competitive nature of collectors is evidenced in the later discussion of the Charter type of low-end collector to the Holy Land- a single tourist purchases an antiquity and others follow suit, whether acting on their own impulses or the motivated by the desire to "keep up with the Joneses". This characteristic is also witnessed by the consumer's desire to receive public acknowledgement of their collecting capabilities either through the display of their purchases in either a public setting or in the privacy of their own homes. For the high-end eollector an underlying motive for amassing a collection is not solely driven by civic-minded goals, but by a desire to display the collector's great wealth and skill at acquiring such a collection. John D. Rockefeller Jr. justified his self-indulgent purchases by reminding his critics that his collection would eventually be donated to a public institution (the Cloisters) for the bette1ment of the public education- and of course to serve as a testament to his benevolence (Baekeland 1981: 53). The pinnacle of the high-end collector's passion is to have one's collection displayed by a museum. As an extension of self, by keeping a collection intact the collectors may be seeking to assure their immortality through display long after their own demise- as in the cases ofElie Borowski and the Bible Lands Museum, the home of his vast collection. Collecting can be attractive as a gesture ofdefeiTing death (Bal1994). But is it overly cynical to view collecting as simply a means of achieving immortality, status, or security? Is collecting not also about connecting to the past, preserving for posterity the achievements of the 113 ancient world, and creating one's own universe through the relationships with the collected material? Or is collecting merely a mania manifest? B. Sociological Factors Motivating Collecting Collecting has altemately been described as glorified consumerism (Danet and Katriel1994) and the ultimate in luxury consumption (Belk 1995a). "The great collector has a sense of destiny, a feeling that he is mankind's agent in gathering and preserving what otherwise might be heedlessly dispersed" (Meyer 1973: 187). Through objects, collectors have the ability to keep alive the collective memory of the past, which otherwise might be forgotten or wrongly interpreted (Rigby and Rigby 1944). Collecting is enmeshed with nationalism, politics, law, and contested aspects of the past and future (Handler 1985). According to Schwm1z (2001: 633), "collecting has existed for as long as humans could conceptualise the idea of beauty. The acquisition of a beautiful object would guarantee present and future enjoyment." Pleasure (real or imagined) attained through owning objects is a major impetus for many collectors. These sentiments are evident with collectors of Near Eastem material. The nouveau riche often regard the purchase of art and antiquities as a way to gain legitimacy and stan~ing among the old families of the aristocracy (Muensterberger 1994). The desire for social distinction or what Moulin (1987) refers to as the "snob factor" is a very important motivator for collectors. In their landmark study "Material and Intellectual Consequences of Esteem for Cycladic Figures," Gill and Chippindale (1993: 634) discuss the snob factor: "another aspect may be that antiquities, like other works of art, are one means by which mere money, even in vulgarly acquired fmm, can become a fine proprietorship; the celebrated way in England for the rising new rich to meld into the old rich is to buy or to build a country estate, and thereby to join the aristocratic ranks of the landed gentry." Possessing some special, generally unavailable items instils status on the self and envy in one's associates. Collections are also a means of demonstrating or claiming high social status vis-a-vis noncollectors as well as other collectors; the distinctiveness of the collection brings distinction to the collectors (Baudrillard 1981, Bourdieu 1984). 114 Collecting then, is the essence of materialism. It involves acquiring, choosing, possessing, and shopping. Collectors create, combine, classify, and curate to produce collections. Clifford (1988: 218) states that collections embody hierarchies of value, exclusions, and the rule-govemed tenitories of self. The gathering of objects together in a collection makes a concrete, visible statement about the collector's personal hierarchy of values. Whatever the motivation- psychological or sociological, there is little question that collecting is much more than the simple experience of pleasure. Ifthat were the case, then one ancient attifact would be enough (which is sometimes tt·ue of the low-end collector). It is of course hue that the pleasure of collecting is prompted by a delight in possessions. It is apparent that individual tendencies not only reflect different temperaments but also correspond in many ways to the individual collector's personality. To some it may be sheer possessiveness -an unquenchable thirst. To others it is the thrill of discovery, or as in the case of antiquities, the powerful emotional experience of owning an object that metaphorically spoke to them. C. Relic Hunting in the Holy Land Why do people collect Near Eastem material? There is a distinctly individual and --.,_ often wide disparity in the private incentives that motivate collectors. In his work, The Strange Life of Objects, Maurice Rheims (1956) suggests that "the passion for an object leads to its being construed as God's special handiwork." This sentiment is particularly true for a1tifacts from the Holy Land, where, according to many believers, the pieces are God's handiwork, possibly even held by Jesus. Collecting is embedded in the individual collector's emotional, economic and inter-personal life and should be understood in those te1ms. Neve1theless, by examining the motivations of a patticular set of collectors of Near Eastem material, who amassed large collections, most of whom have had their collections exhibited in prominent museums, we see some common characteristics. The collecting of mtifacts has a long history in the region, which is tied to the substantiation of faith based on a material past. In his discussion of "archaeology-as- relic-hunting" Silberman (1989: 130-31) states that perhaps the Emperor Constantine 115 initiated the cunent attitude toward the Bible. 161 The Jews were already devoted to the region and had been for centuries, but with the spread of Christianity as an accepted religion came hordes of Christian pilgrims (Murphy-O'Connor 1992: 4) eager to be closer to the Holy Spirit tlu·ough relics from the Holy Land. "Useful for both biblical contemplation and as talismans to ward off ill health and bad f01tune, ancient artifacts from the Holy Land quickly became status symbols for simple Clu·istian pilgrims and wealthy aristocrats alike" (Silbetman 1989: 131 ). During this period archaeological investigations increased and the exp011 of relics from the Holy Land was unprecedented- both activities were supp011ed by church officials (Silbetman 1989: 131 ). For many of the modem collectors it is the desire to authenticate biblical nanatives that is a motivating force behind their collecting practices. Section II provides an in-depth examination of the types of consumers pal1icipating in the legal market for antiquities in the Holy Land. Il. WHO- WHO COLLECTS NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTIFACTS A. Low-end Consumption The tourist (regardless of which type), when purchasing an object selects representations of authenticj ty which are meaningful to him or her (Shenhav-Keller 1995: 157). Archaeological al1ifacts as tourist souvenirs are symbols of a past (an ancient people), the present (the visit to the Holy Land), and the future (a cultural or religious continuity), allowing for closeness and distance at the same time. In her examination of the tourist shop, Maskit 162 Shenhav-Keller (1993, 1995) unpacks the various aspects of shops that sell items to tourists looking for their "roots" or "cultural identity". She sees the journey of the tourist as on a type of pilgrimage regardless of the individuals' religion or purpose for visiting the Holy Land (Shenhav-Keller 1995). In making a purchase tourists find confitmation that the journey had purpose; taking home a piece of the Holy Land is like receiving assurance of a connectedness to the place, leaving none in doubt. In the following analysis of the low-end 163 category of collectors, the 161 See Chapter 3 for fmther discussion of the history of archaeology and acquisition in the region. 162 M as kit [Hebrew] meaning omament or beautifully and aesthetically exciting object is taken from the Bible (Shenhav-Keller 1993: 184). 163 Low-end includes both tomists, and religious pilgrims to the Holy Land. archaeological artifacts being "consumed" can be considered souvenirs 164 as opposed to the objet d'art of the high-end purchase. MacCannell (1973: 597) claims that the "tourist consciousness is motivated by the desire for authentic experiences, and the tourist may believe that he or she is motivated in that direction" when they travel [emphasis mine]. Many tourists search for authenticity in their experiences through the purchase of a souvenir of their visit: buying a souvenir is an act of acquisition of an object perceived as authentic (Shenhav-Keller 1995: 144). What better way to prolong the experience than by taking home a piece to convey the authenticity of the event. What is important about the souvenir is not what it is but how it is perceived by individuals who are part of the social worlds connected with its production, distribution, and consumption (Appadurai 1986, MacCannell 1976, Shenhav-Keller 1995) and how it acquires meaning as a result of being removed from its original context. As the discussion in this chapter demonstrates, objects are encoded with significance by the various pmticipants in the trade in antiquities. The objects taken home as mementos of visits by low-end collectors may or may not be encoded with the same significance. From its origins as relic gathering by pious pilgrims, archaeological artifacts from the Holy Land have been powerful signifiers of ideological meanings and reflections of political and social relatienships (Shenhav-Keller 1993: 183). Low-end and high-end collectors alike seek a concrete connection to the past, fmther defined through the filter of their nationality, ethnicity and religious affiliation. Archaeological material confirms an unbroken continuity, a past that cannot be separated from the present and one that conveys a powerful link to the future. Few low-end collectors come home from a vacation without something to show for it. Souvenirs are tangible evidences of travel that I are often shared with family and friends but what one really brings back are memories of experiences. As visual anthropologist Edrnund Carpenter so succinctly states: "The connection between symbol and things comes from the fact that the symbol-the word or picture (or mtifact)-helps give the 'thing' its identity, clarity, definition. It helps convett given reality into experienced reality, and is therefore an indispensable patt of all experience." (Carpenter 1973: 17) 164 Souvenir - to remember, from Latin subvenire to come up, come to mind; a remembrance, a memory (OED). 117 The plethora of antiquities shops is a testament to the archaeological miifact as souvenir, an indispensable part of the tourist experience. Based on the work of Smi.th (1978) and Cohen (1988) examining types of tourists, I formulated an outline of visitors to the Holy Land, the purchases they make, the shops they frequent and the levels of perceived authenticity165 . Type of Tourist Type of Shop Type of purchase Authenticity Explorer Cabinet Small, if anything Most authentic Elite Home, Art High-end expensive Provenience Gallery, sometimes an issue Museum Mass (religious) Cabinet, Tourist, Items associated with Some authenticity Museum religious period, person Religious association (sand from the Holy of primary Land) consideration Chmier Tourist, Cabinet, Anything reminiscent of Replicas, inauthentic Museum, Art the visit Gallery Figure 5.2 . . VIsitors to the Holy Land (after Cohen 1988 and Srruth 1977): B. Types of Low-end Collectors in the Holy Land i) Explorers Explorers are demonstrably different from other tourists and are more closely aligned with anthropologists through their attempts to actively live among the local population and visit sites .off of the beaten track (Smith 1978). In the Holy Land they are often backpackers or kibbutz volunteers, usually travelling singly or in pairs, easily 165 There is a large body of literature in the anthropology of tourism, dealing with issues of authenticity, I do not intend for this thesis to veer off-course with discussions on authenticity. I am using this problematic te1m here because it was used by many of the tomists and collectors I interviewed. Cohen ( 1988: 374) states that " the difficulty with using this concept is that it is a philosophical concept which has been uncritically introduced into sociological analysis." As the researcher in this particular situation I was expected to know what is authentic (not whether an artifact was real or fake, but what type of artifact best typifies a visit to the Holy Land, and whether the individual was having an authentic Holy Land experience) but for the individuals interviewed this is always changing. 118 adapting to the local food, customs, and living conditions. Explorers seek an authentic 166 tourist experience and if they purchase antiquities at all they tend to visit the cabinet of curiosity shops, where the perc.eption of authenticity is greater. In one instance a low-end collector stated that he wanted something from the Holy Land to remind him of his travels but he wanted to buy it from an authentic Palestinian in the Old City and not from one of those fancy shops on King David Street (Collector 2). I met him in a shop where the dealer, who dressed in traditional Palestinian garb, professed to be a descendant of one of the renowned Bedouin h·ibes in the area (Dealer 36). This dealer (36) contributed to the authenticity of the souvenirs and the experience through what Fine and Speer (1985) refer to as "verbal performance". His statements about his ancestors, the lay out of his shop and the appearance of the artifact as having recently been excavated (very dusty and dirty) suppmt the role of the authentic antiquities purchase. Regardless of whether the dealer's license was out of date (which it was, by two years) he and his shop were authentic enough for the explorer. In another encounter with an explorer tourist in an antiquities shop, the tourist wanted something.fi-om the year zero (Collector 3). The dealer (15) responded Do you mean from the time of Jesus? To which the collector (3) replied, Yes, the time of Jesus . I have US $500 dollars and want something from the time of Jesus to take back to Australia as a present for some .fi-iends. I was just in Syria and Lebanon where I saw a lot of interesting archaeological artifacts for sale [at much cheaper prices}, but I didn't buy them there because no one could give me a certificate of authenticit/67. I knew in Israel that if I purchased from a licensed shop I could get a certificate and then I would know they were real. The transaction ensued and the tourist left with a small bronze Byzantine cross, a figurine head from the Persian period, and a Roman coin all for US $500. With each artifact he received a certificate of authenticity produced by the dealer. The tourist did not ask about an expmtlicense but the dealer offered one, perhaps because I was a 166 That t1icky tem1 here is used to desc1ibe an experience that would most closely resemble the daily events of a local resident. 167 For purposes of cla~ification, the tolllist is not enquiring about an export license, which would allow him to legally transport the items back to Australia. He is most concerned with the "authenticity" (here meaning whether the a1iifact is genuine) of the items and obtaining a certificate assllling him of his purchases. 119· witness to the entire business deal 168. The explorer walked away satisfied that his purchases were authentic. ii) Elites Elite tourists are few in number and usually stay in the expensive hotels and spas throughout Israel 169• Many elite tourists are American-Jews visiting the Holy Land for the religious holidays, a rite of passage (Bar/Bat Mitzvah), or other special religious events. Given the cunent political situation, if they venture into the Old City it is primarily to the Jewish Quarter, so the majority of the shops they visit are of the art gallery or museum type, usually in the lobby of the hotel in which they are staying. The elite tourist is less interested in the experience of buying the artifacts than the artifacts themselves. They visit shops based on recommendations of others, and these tourists make up the bulk of the trade for the two dealers who have their material in their homes. They seek archaeological artifacts as gifts for those aforementioned events connecting the Jewish present to the ancient Jewish past, but they rarely ask questions about provenience. In this way they avoid any nasty associations with Palestinian looters or illegal elements that may be associated with the procurement of artifacts. They assume that all of the pieces in the licensed shop are legitimately for sale. 170 According to Shenhav-Keller (1993: 187) ~ . these tourists want authentic artifacts that express craftsmanship, art and aesthetics, originality, cultural and historical roots, and Judaica (ritual objects). An incident in a West Jerusalem antiquities shop (Dealer 55) catering to an elite tourist base, illustrates the demand for not only Jewish but also Christian items. During a visit to a shop on King David Street, an expe11 in Islamic ceramics (Archaeologist 4) noticed that an Islamic piece was mislabelled as Herodian (from "the time of Jesus") . The mistake was pointed out to the proprietor, who responded: Oh I know, but Herodian sells better and it's all about customer satisfaction. The lamp, while labelled inconectly, is genuine and the consumer is getting what they demand- artifacts from the time of Jesus. 168 See Chapter 6 for a discussion of the exchange of register numbers, and export licenses. 169 Elite toUJists exhibit many of the same collecting characteristics as high-end collectors. 170 And why should they think otherwise if they are in a legally sanctioned shop, prominently displaying a license to deal in antiquities, issued by the IAA . See Figure 5.3 for an example of an antiquities license. 120 ~ ~ ., u n .. .. ,. ~ ~ " :~ :~ ,, lfrm,ufrl .. ·kfo'll•t . iii) Mass Visitors .. " ~ ~; :: .. ~ ;; , .. " , . .. l~ .. .. .. ,. Figure 5.3 : • , . ·.- ~ , . ,,, r. ·.\, " "" •. ,• , ,1,v "' , ,~ • ,. • • " • .• •. ' ·• - ' it -: • -, .:.-. · ••• '' '" •• ,._., -·~··· •• !. • • ,... • • ' ' • ,j, .•·· .:~ .•: .~ '.. • .... --.·· """'-···· ~; ... IAA License to Sell Antiquities. Mass (religious)-tourism provides a steady flow of tourists who visit the Holy Land for specific religious events, festivals and rites of passage regardless of the political situation. They will make a purchase in almost any type of shop, but by virtue of their schedule they are usually only exposed to those shops in close proximity to the religious sites they visit (predominantly along the Via Dolorosa, the Christian Quarters and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City), and their hotels. Pilgrims come from all over the world, from all economic levels, and from varying religions (predominantly Christian and Jewish). Despite the diversity of individual tastes and budgets the basic goal of this type of low-end collector is to buy something that is evocative of their particular religion, through a connection to a holy place or person. If they choose to buy archaeological artifacts with associated religious significance, the artifacts must be authentic, that is they should not be specifically manufactured for the market 171 because these pilgrims are looking for real objects from the time of Jesus (Collector 2), that Jesus might have held. 171 Meaning here replicas or fakes. 121 Dealers (6, 7, 10, 23, 25, and 36) of tourist type shops (as opposed to museum/art gallery shops) confirmed that most of the mass low-end collectors rarely make purchases of antiquities. As part of the rationale for diversifying their stock from only antiquities, these dealers state that to get tourists into the shop they had to offer the ubiquitous t-shirt or pen to get the tourist in the shop door. The dealers then encourage the tourists to make the purchase of an antiquity. A shop (Dealer 31) in Jerusalem's Old City displays boxes full of inexpensive archaeological matetial for sale (see Figure 5.4) to the passing tourist. Primarily Byzantine and Roman oil lamps, small jars and pots from the Middle Bronze Age and lacrimarium (Roman glass pots for catching tears) such items usually sell for between US $5 and US $20, and they meet the low-cost, portable, dustable and understandable criteria articulated by Grabum (1976:15). Under normal circumstances 172 these items are very popular with mass low-end collectors to the area. According to the shop owner, tourists feel closer to Jesus by taking home a Roman oil lamp. Figure 5.4 Inexpensive archaeological material for sale in Jerusalem's Old City. When asked about Jewish or Muslim material, the shop owner stated that Christians were the real consumers and hecaters to tourists' tastes (Dealer 31). 172 The intifada (uprising) that began in October of 2000 and its ongoing aftermath resulted in an extended period of virtually little or no tourism. Consequently, consumer patterns in Jerusalem's Old City are dramatically different from the preceding period, when tourism was at an all time high. 122 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The fourth type of tourist identified as a consumer of archaeological material in the Holy Land is the charter tourist who arrives en masse, travelling by bus from one site to another, and are never without a guide (Smith 1978). They will shop wherever the bus drops them, and their guide usually has a place in mind (where he or she receives a percentage of the total profits from sales to the charter tour). Charter tourists are usually part of a group from their home (religious, civic, or fratemal organisations) and at times the destination is of less relevance than the camaraderie of the trip. Dealers (2, 3, 5-16, 23, 24, 36-40) stated that typically, if one person on the tour purchased an antiquity, then many others were emboldened to do so. In many cases authenticity of an object is forgone in favour of an attractive knick knack of something that would look good on my mantle at home (Collector 7). Low-end collectors from this group often purchase replica miifacts knowing that the item is not genuine, but preferring the lower price. For them the replica is evocative ofthe hip regardless ofits inauthentic aspects (Collectors 11, 12). C. High-end Collectors Each of the following case studies is pati of the historical process of collecting, with its changing values, and opinions in the Middle East. The collectors were chosen for their similarities and diffe'fences in their class, gender, and religious backgrounds. Yet they are also "characters" with private agendas and idiosyncrasies. These individuals and vignettes do not explain the phenomenon of collecting Near Eastem matelial, but they do illuminate collecting characteristics in each of their particular stories. All of these high- end collectors have become famous and/or infamous through their collecting practices. i) Leo Mildenberg For Leo Mildenberg ( 1913-200 I) "to buy an ancient animal, he had not only to love it, but to feel a certain communication with it" (Kozloff 2004: 6). Mildenberg was not interested in fierce or vicious animals, those posed ready to strike or burdened with a load. The animals in Mildenberg's collection were all free and peaceful, perhaps in reaction to his earlier experiences in the Russian prison camps (Russell 2004) or perhaps as an acknowledgement to Noah, a perceived earlier ancestor. A renowned numismatist specialising in coins from the Classical world, Mildenberg began collecting animals in 123 ' the early 1950s, and in 1981 the Cleveland Museum of Art hosted the first public appearance ofhis collection. Embodying a Good Collector173 characteristic, Mildenberg was emphatic that young schoiars should be allowed access to the collection for study purposes and in his will there was a provision that the unpublished animals must be catalogued and published (Kozloff2004: 7). The entire collection then went on the auction block at Christie's in October of2004. For Mildenberg the animals in his collection were his pets. By ascribing them names, the animals not only became objects of affection, but also pa1iicipants in symbolic relationships of dominance and control (Belk et al. 1991 ). His desire to substitute the original context of the objects with that of the collection was evident in his assignation of human qualities to lifeless clay animals. " ' Look at it! Listen!' He would say, holding it close to the visitor's face, 'It speaks to me, it speaks to you!"' (Kozloff2004: 6). With discerning taste Mildenberg chose many of the animals in his collection on the basis of quality, but also based on his personal response to each piece (Kozloff 1981: 5). In describing an object in his collection Mildenberg stated "When I saw it in the dealer's showcase, it glared back at me and pierced me with its eyes. It almost leaped at me. I knew I had to have it!" (Kozloff 1981: 58). Mildenberg exhibits many of the characteristics of the notional Good Collector: respect, collection accessibility, knowledge, and provision of loans to museums for exhibitions. At the same time he also exhibits many of the more negative qualities possessed by many collectors, some of which border on the fetishistic (Clifford 1985, Ellen 1988). "In contemplating their collections, collectors often spend much time physically handling the items, and readily state that physical contact is inherently satisfying" (Danet and Katriel 1994: 29). By attributing human properties to the animals 173 Expe1is (see Ede 2000, Mclntosh 2000, Renfrew 2000a, and Vincent 2000) from the fields of archaeology, antiquities dealing, and joumalism were asked to comment on whether a Good Collector could exist. The characte1istics of a Good Collector outlined in an earlier article (Mclntosh, Togola, and Mclntosh 1995) include a number of themes: respect (for other cultures and the past), openness (allowing scholars access to collections for study), and knowledge. An underlying assumption is that a collector will ask about provenience and not buy unprovenienced material. The Good Collector allegedly will not make purchases based solely on aesthetic appeal and they will loan items in their collection to museums for exhibitions. In order to fmiher academic enquiry, these notional Good Collectors will sponsor excavations, establish centres for study, and provide scholarly research grants . Theoretically they will repahiate mate1ial when it is discovered to be stolen, or of suspected provenience. Archetypal Good Collectors in this perspective are seen as nation builders who recognise and supp01i the laws and regulations of the counhies from which the collected items 01iginate. 124· in his collection, Mildenberg demonstrates a relationship which Ellen (1988: 223) would consider fetishistic. For Mildenberg the collection becomes a passionate love, a · defenceless child and, therefore, a responsibility, which constantly needs to be fed (Martin 1999). By consigning his collection to auction after his death, Mildenberg extends his feelings of competence or mastery, but ensuring a secure financial future for his descendants. Many of the same collecting characteristics exhibited by Mildenberg are shared by Shlomo Moussaieff in response to his own troubled childhood. ii) Shlomo Moussaieff Born to a well-established Jewish family Shlomo Moussaieff (1923-) left his home in Jerusalem when he was twelve in reaction to his strict religious upbringing and abusive father. Moussaieff lived for the most pati in the burial caves in the Silwan area of Jerusalem. He soon learned that there were coins, oil lamps and ancient glass lying around the tombs which he could collect and sell (Shanks 1996: 27). In the early 1950s he became part of the antiquities business in Jerusalem setting up a shop in Jerusalem near the Jaffa Gate. He bought from Arab villagers and sold to pilgrims, tourists, wealthy locals, and kept some material for himself. In the early days of the state of Israel Moussaieffbecame a trad~ in jewellery making most of his f01tune by selling high-end pieces to international royalty and wealthy individuals. He established jewellery shops in the Hilton Hotel in London's Mayfair area and in Tel Aviv. Alongside the finest diamonds and emeralds he sold high-end antiquities to the most discerning of customers (Shanks 1996). Today, Moussaieff is mainly a collector; he buys but does not sell. "A conservative estimate numbers his collection at over 10,000 pieces" (Shanks 1996: 31 ). Although his collection has not been catalogued or published in its entirety, he does allow scholarly access to his material (see Deutsch 2003) and does loan pieces for museum display, embodying the classic characteristics of the Good Collector. Exhibiting other supposed Good Collector characteristics, Moussaieff established the "Moussaieff Center for Research in Kabbalah" at Bar Ilan University in Israel and has donated his grandfather's entire, rare collection of Kabbalistic manuscripts and large collection of rare printed books to the university (Bar Ilan University 2005). In return Moussaieffwas awarded an honourary doctorate from the University, thus showing to the world and his 125 peers a public acknowledgement of his intellectual superiority, wealth, and success as a collector. Such a gift acts as a lasting legacy to ensme his influence for generations. In a recent interview with Robert Deutsch (2004) antiquities dealer, long-time friend, business associate, and cataloguer of the Moussaieff collection, Deutsch revealed that Moussaieff is a man possessed. He is crazy. It is a siclmess. He has an inner need to possess things and can not control the desire to own artifacts. In his own words Moussaieff states that he collects "to prove the authenticity of the Bible". Belief in the historicity of the biblical narrative is his chief driving force for sharing knowledge and allowing scholarly access to his collection. "Do you think it's easy to be a collector- to be always in a constant battle with the forger, to waste money on fakes?" asks Moussaieff. "I can do a million other things that I can benefit a million times more but I am addicted" (from Shanks 1996). In making a statement of this nature, Moussaieff admits his addiction, thereby abdicating all responsibility vis-a-vis provenience (Belk 1995a: 480). Because he is afflicted with this addiction he will stop at nothing to gain the pieces he desires, regardless of the questionable means by which they were procmed. This addiction may have led him to buy forgeries and make ill-advised pmchases of unprovenienced material. In light of the recent forgery scandal 174 involving collectors and dealers with whom Moussaieffhas had long standing relationships, many ofthe items in Moussaieffs collection are being tested to determine their authenticity (Goren et al. 2005). In a recent report of the scientific analysis of two ostraca from the Moussaieff collection Yuval Goren and colleagues (Goren et al. 2005: 32) state "the microphologic, petrographic and isotopic examination of the two ostraca indicate without a doubt that these are modem forgeries" . This comes as no surprise to Moussaieff, who has in the past suggested that if you purchase as many artifacts as he does you must expect a few forgeries in the collection (Shanks 1996). 174 The fraud tJial associated with the James ossuary and the 1ing of supposed forgers associated with the faking of the inscription mentioning James as the brother of Jesus. Moussaieff was asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution in order to establish that Moussaieff himself had been defrauded by the defendants, establishing a pattem ofbehaviour of the accused men . Dming his testimony Moussaieffstated that sometimes he knew something was a fake, but he was so enamoured with the artifact he was able to convince himself it was real (Shanks 2005c). What motivates someone like Moussaieff? He believes that his collection of Judaica could prove the literal truth of the Bible, a theory which he finnly supports (Ehrlich and Zebaida 2003: 119). His collecting practices are largely defined by a reverence for Jewish history and a desire to prove the biblical narratives. "In a sense the Biblical past is his present" (Shanks 1996: 64). An analysis ofhis mania based on collecting theory, reveals that his need to possess atiifacts may be connected to feelings of loss and lack of control over aspects of his life (his lost childhood and abusive early family life) or a reaction to trauma (Baekeland 1981, Martin 1999, Muensterberger 1994, Rheims 1959). In his seminal analysis of the a1i market, Rheims (1959: 22) states that children who run away from home are more likely to become collectors- Moussaieff himself was a twelve year old runaway. The themes of loss, lack of control, loneliness, and reaction to stressful situations are also manifest in the collecting practices of other collectors ofNear Eastern a1tifacts. iii) Moshe Dayan For the better pati of three decades, renowned military leader and politician Moshe Dayan (1915-1981) collected antiquities. Through purchases from antiquities dealers, gifts, and his own illicit excavations, Dayan amassed some of the most astounding pieces uneatihea in the Levant. In his defence he states that he purchased atiifacts and pillaged archaeological sites in the name of humanitarian interests in order to save the antiquities from destruction (Dayan 1978). His biographer Ehud Ben-Ezer (1997) describes him as a hero "who saves antiquities from destruction." Raz Kletter (2003, 2005) documents no less than thi1iy-five sites illegally excavated by Dayan in his voracious quest for atiifacts. Initially Dayan's obsession with antiquities was related to the nascent state oflsrael and justification of the state's existence (Dayan 1978). In seeking a1tifacts with an association to the land and the Bible, Dayan purchased a ceramic figurine from a Madison Avenue antiquities shop, which for him evoked the story of Rachel 's sufferings and household gods, which Rachel had stolen from her father's house (Genesis 31:34) (Dayan 1978: 43-44). Possessing atiifacts related to past ancestors legitimised the existence of the state of Israel for Dayan and fuelled his desire to excavate and own antiquities. 127 Dayan purchased most of his artifacts from antiquities dealers in the "West Bank". After Jerusalem came under Israeli control in 1967 he frequented the dealers in the Old City. He recounts the difficulties of Israelis accessing material from Jordan, what he refers to as the East Bank (Dayan 1978: 213-215). He purchased what he considered Figure 5.5 Left to Right: Moshe Dayan, Khader M. Baidun, A Local Collector, Mahmoud Baidun (Image from ). one of the finest pieces in his collection- a sculpture of a king's head from Amman- ' from Baidun, 175 a reputable dealer in the Old City (see Figure 5.5). "How or where he got it I never asked. I follow the principle that whenever one acquires antiquities, one should be beware of buying at the same time the tales which the dealers attach to their merchandise" (Dayan 1978: 215). As Dayan aged his forays into the field decreased, while his visits to the Old City antiquities shops increased, coinciding with a change in his collecting behaviour. From all accounts it appears that post-1967 Dayan moved from a collector motivated by an attachment to the land through artifacts, to what Rotenstein (1997) refers to as an economist/materialist collector, one whose main ambition is to amass a collection in order to realise profits. He was a victim of what Marx (1963) and Adomo (1991) refer to as a commodity fetishism. The artifacts with exchange value, were fetishised for the amount of capital they could realise upon sale. At this stage Dayan was no longer 175 On the Baidun website there is a photograph ofDayan buying antiquities in the store and a testimonial from Dayan. See 128 fascinated by the figurine of the Iron II period but was single-mindedly focused on its income producing potential. The exchange value dominates the use value (either the original or symbolic use). Dayan's grandson describes a scene where they were examining some scarabs "like experts evaluating the merchandise" (Dayan 1991: 20), reinforcing the merchant image. Kletter (2003, 2005) reports that Dayan sold surplus items from his collection to fund various aspects of his life including his daughter 's wedding. When asked by a fellow Knesset member about how an artifact bearing the label "from the collection ofMoshe Dayan" appeared in a New York town house, Dayan admitted that he sometimes sold pieces but was always careful to sign the bottom of the artifact as coming from his collection as if excusing himself from all blame (Kletter 2003). It is this signature that often acts as contagion or the "celebrity factor" as it is refened to by Mackenzie (2005a: 256). Frequently the association with Moshe Dayan has greater commercial wmth than the objects themselves. The attifacts have gathered meaning as a consequence ofbeing collected by a famous person (Bal1994). Objects from the Moshe Dayan collection are no longer collected as intrinsically valuable but serve as symbols linked to Dayan for the collectors who acquired them (Dominguez 1986). Collecting is not about the piece but the associated meanings, a phenomenon I witnessed while at an antiquities auction in Tel Aviv. Highlighted in the auction catalogue description was the association with Moshe Dayan (Image 252 Ancient Coins and Antiquities Catalogue No. 30, 2003 see Figure 5.6) . By purchasing an item from the Moshe Dayan collection the collector is allowed to bask in reflected glory. By purchasing a celebrated object the collector may accrue benefits simply by aligning him or herself with the object. 129 • r i I I I I 252 Figure 5.6 Anthropomorphic Clay Coffin Lid. 176 Throughout his collecting history it was assumed and verbally confirmed by Dayan that his collection would pass on his death to the Israel Museum (Dayan 1978), essentially the State of Israel. "At one time I was innocent enough to believe that he [Dayan] would donate it, states Yaakov Meshorer, friend of Dayan and curator at the Israel Museum. At a certain stage unofficially, he [Dayan] told me 'Let me enjoy it, and after my death it will come to the museum"' (Aarons 1982: 28), I This was conoborated in recent ethnographic interviews with archaeologists and museum professionals in Israel. "We allowed him to dig because we were sure that in the end all of the pieces would come to the museum" (Archaeologist 17). In the end the artifacts did come to the museum but with a price tag. Dayan's widow, to whom he bequeathed the 176 Archaeological Center. Licensed to Sell Ancient History. Ancient Coins and Antiquities Auction No. 30, October 15, 2003. Image 252 Description: An Anthropomorphic Clay Coffin Lid. Ex-Moshe Dayan collection, signed in Hebrew on the back by Dayan. Estimate at auctions US $2000 - US $2500 (it went unsold). 130 antiquities, offered the entire collection to the museum after his death for US $2 million dollars. After m:uch debate and discussion, a donor to the Israel Museum contributed US $1 million of the requested amount. The rest Rachel Dayan bestowed to the museum, perhaps compelled to donate part in order to rehabilitate the reputation of the collection and the collector (Aarons 1982: 28). In his account of the controversial 1986 opening of The Dayan Collection: A Man and His Land, Neil Silbe1man (1989) describes the protests and public outcry over the validation ofDayan's reprehensible practices through a State sponsored public exhibition. Silbe1man (1989: 126) speculates that this incident may have served as a catalyst in examining the antiquities laws and practices of cultural heritage management in the State oflsrael 177. In his many manifestations of collector, Dayan embodies the characteristics of an obsessed and savvy businessman. His physical response to an object echoes that of Leo Mildenberg and George Ortiz- "On one occasion, Dajani, an Arab dealer in antiquities from the Old City of Jerusalem, brought me a large earthenware jug in the shape of a cow. I could hardly take my eyes- and hands- off it" (Dayan 1978: 110). All three collectors admit a longing to touch the artifacts they are considering for their collections -a true collector can only know a piece through tactile contact (Danet and Katriel 1989). Initially his passion,was motivated by his ties to the state and by the need to reaffi1m the Jewish presence in the past, but in his younger years what was truly alluring to Dayan were the hunt, the sense of danger and excitement, and the desire to possess . At times the true collector is usually aroused by the element of the hunt (Aristides 1988, Benjamin 1973, F01manek 1991). His passion for collecting was never mistaken for an interest in archaeology. For Dayan it was about the chase. Nowhere is this more evident than in the accounts of his raids in the Sinai at Sera bit al-Khadem, his battle with cave fever and white ticks at Khirbet Adullam (Dayan 1978: 190-192) and his near death experience at Azur when a burial cave collapsed (Kletter 2003). The financial motivations developed later in life were a happy consequence that became more enticing as old age set in. That his name lives on as a possessor and robber of antiquities was most certainly an unintended consequence. 177 In 1989 a second antiquities law (Antiquities Authmity Law 5749-1989) was passed to protect fm1her the antiquities and archaeology in Israel. 131 Dayan was a tyrant who used his military clout, reputation as a war hero, standing as a respected Cabinet Minister, and later a member ofthe Knesset, to "persuade" archaeologists, military personnei, ordinary individuals, and even ten year old boys (Kletter 2003) to aid in his quest for artifacts from the past. 178 In an interview with archaeologist Tmde Dothan she described an almost quid pro quo effect of dealing with Dayan. He provided my excavations with access and military protection at Deir el-Balah when working in the unstable Gaza Strip. I was diplomatic about his past investigations into the area to recover anthropoid sarcophagi (Dothan 2004). At the opening of the Dayan exhibit at the Israel Museum, Professor Dothan was the invited key note speaker; her discussion ofDayan ' s unauthorised activity at the site was discreet (Silberman 1989). Debate over the practices ofDayan and the purchase of his collection still rages. 179 Opinion is still divided over the acquisition and disposition of the collection, but few in the museum realm are willing to discuss the issues. As pa1i of this research project I approached a curator at the Israel Museum (one involved with the Dayan collection acquisition) about the possibility of an interview to discuss museum acquisitions and the market, but was told I am sorry but I am not a specialist in this subject (Museum 5). In response to questions about whether the exhibit condoned the collecting style of Dayan, Mmiin Weyl, then director of the Israel Museum (1986), stated "Not at all. My job is to collect and exhibit. It's not my job to enforce the antiquities laws" (Silberman 1989: 128), thus absolving the museum of all ethical responsibility surrounding controversial purchases. To collect and exhibit for public benefit is a similar sentiment held by Elie Borowski, long time collector and founder of the Bible Lands Museum in Jemsalem. iv) Elie Borowski In the preface to the exhibit catalogue for Ladders to Heaven, Art Treasures from the Lands of the Bible, an exhibition held at the Royal Ontario Museum in 1979, long- time collector Elie Borowski states that "he was always looking for artifacts which illustrate, explain or confi1m the nanatives or events known to me from cuneiform or Biblical sources" (Borowski 1979: 12). To him, we cannot appreciate the underlying 178 Dayan employed many of these same characte1istics in negotiations over the proposed cultural heritage legislation in the 1970s. See Chapter 4 for fUJiher discussion. 179 For recent discussion of the ethical dilemma suJTounding the acquisition and display of the Moshe Dayan collection and Israel Museum, see Shanks 2005b. 132 principles, motivations and purposes of the societies that have come before us without understanding how they were shaped and conditioned: this we know through objects (Borowski 1979). This belief is what, in part, drove Borowski to collect. Borowski viewed the artifacts not as an end in themselves but as vehicles to accomplish what was most important to him - tangible evidence of the Bible (Krech and Hail 1999). "His goal to assemble as many objects from the biblical period as could be found was inspired at this time in order to create an institution of learning- a unique resource of universal stature where people of all faiths would come to learn about biblical history and return to the morals and ethics of the Bible." (Borowski 2005) Under a section entitled "The Dream" Elie Borowski's (1913-2003) vision for the Bible Lands Museum is explained. 180 Borowski established the Bible Lands Museum in / Figure 5.7 The Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem. Jerusalem with the sole purpose of confirming the biblical narrative. Borowski looked on the museum as a gift to mankind: "Not just a building to display the collection, but a study centre for scholars, a sponsor of excavations, a publisher of learned books and articles, a living museum that would grow and acquire new pieces" (Shanks 1985). Borowski appears to exhibit many of the characteristics of the so-called Good Collector. 18° From the website for the Bible Lands Museum at 133 I I Borowski's vision for his collection was to act as the moral and ethical compass for the general public: yet, much of the collection was acquired without provenience- a questionable ethical practice. In defence of the mostly unprovenienced Borowski collection, the primary importance of this collection is that once orphaned objects have been removed from private ownership and the antiquities market and transfened to public domain, a truly rare and positive event (Caporale 1979). Once again the collector is heralded as saving the past for the public. Once again he is a hero, receiving public accolades for his nefarious collecting practices. Preservation of the past for the future was one of the proclaimed goals that Borowski shared with contemporary collectors such as Dayan and Moussaieff. All three acquired material in Israel and all three focused on corporeal affilmations of the Jewish faith in the historical record. The network of collectors of Near Eastern material is small and at times very competitive. In the 1960s as a dealer in Israel, Moussaieff became acquainted with Dayan. "I used his tender [vehicle] to transport antiquities. In return I gave him antiquities . Sometimes we used to go to dig together" (!Getter 2003, quoting from Liebowitz-Dar 2001: 26). Many of the collectors from this small cabal confen·ed (and until recently continue to confer) with each about the value, authenticity, and rmity smTOunding particular pieces. In order to gather further information on artifacts in the market, collectors also consult with archaeologists, epigraphers, and other experts willing to act as authenticators, and evaluators. As part of his planning and courtship stage of collecting (stage 3 of Mclntosh and Schmeichel) 181 Borowski often hosted scholars at his residences in Switzerland and New York. Ostensibly the invitation was an innocent one, but once there the scholars were usually asked for their opinion on a pm1icular piece. How could one refuse such a congenial host?, was the reply of two such scholars (Archaeologist 5, Archaeologist 17) when questioned about their response to such a request. Exhibiting other characteristics of collectors, Borowski 's passion was also based on a familiarity with the Near East stemming from an academic background in archaeology. He demonstrated the characteristics of what Akin (1996: 118) refers to as a 18 1 See section III of this Chapter for a discussion of Mclntosh and Schmeichel 's eight stage collecting process. 134 . fmmal or maximising collector- a sophisticated knowledge of his field and a concem for improving the quality and range of the collection according to culturally dete1mined criteria, educating the public about the Bible. Like Mildenberg, Borowski's collecting practices were also linked to feelings of loss and bereavement. Much of his family perished in concentration camps in Poland, and, in 1973, his only son was tragically killed in a traffic accident (Borowski 1979: 13). He used his artifacts as a substitute for lost loved ones. Thus, Borowski was participating in what Baekeland (1981: 49) refers to as a soterial relationship: objects save collectors by alleviating depression and anxiety and collectors save the material past for the future. Reminiscent of Dayan and Moussaieff, we see in Borowski the inner logic of the collector, much like the big game hunter stalking his prey (Borowski 1995). But unlike Dayan, Borowski's accumulation unfolds in tasteful, pedagogical, edifying manner (Clifford 1985). Guided by his PhD, his time was spent in sophisticated auction houses rather than filthy archaeological sites . The quest for the perfect embodiment of the biblical past was of paramount impmtance to Borowski. Like Mildenberg, Borowski was emotionally and physically attached to his pieces, "for him selling a piece from the collection is like committing hara-kiri. He suffers when he is unable to purchase a new piece" (Shanks 1985: 24). --.. Borowski achieved power tlu·ough display: what better way to gain the most power than through the establishment of a museum devoted entirely to one's own personal collection. There the items could be ananged, exhibited, and interpreted according to Borowski 's personal theories of the objects ' relationship to the Bible. Tlu·ough the Bible Lands Museum, Elie Borowski sought the immmtality that a public collection of priceless goods confers. This is unlike Mildenberg who does not leave his collection to a pmticular museum. Instead, like Dayan, Mildenberg sells his collection to the highest bidder. Borowski sought immmtality, while Dayan and Mildenberg sought assurances that their descendants would be financially cared for after their demise. v) George Ortiz In the foreword to the exhibition catalogue of the George 01tiz collection, John Boardman (1994) reaffirms the role of collector as hero by stating that "the private 135 collector continues to play an important role in the history of art: as a patron or as receptor of classes of objects that might not otherwise be much regarded by public collections." He sees the collector as someone motivated not only by status, investment, or scholarly interest but also by a compulsion to assemble objects, which "delight the eye and comfort the mind." To Boardman this is true of the Ortiz collection. It is one man' s desire to enhance his visual experience and comf01i his anxieties. Boardman (1994) continues to extol the vi1iues of Ortiz as a collector, justifying 01iiz's purchases and sometimes ethical behaviours by asse1iing that Otiiz knows what he is buying and is doing the world a service by rescuing items from the market. A similar argument was recently made by Hanan Eshel in his defence of purchasing a Dead Sea scroll from a Bedouin looter "Scholars do not buy antiquities . I did it because I could not see it fall apa1i" (Haas 2005), once again casting the collector in the role of hero, and saviour all for the greater good. 182 The ultimate justification of the activity of collecting is metaphysical -the thirst for the absolute (Moulin 1987: 83). The exhibition In Pursuit of the Absolute. Art of the Ancient World typifies the charactetistic of Ortiz who subscribes to the belief- as do many collectors -that the pursuit of the perfect collection is pursuit of the ideal self (Belk and Wallendorf 1997). For men like Otiiz, examples of rare aesthetic beauty are proof of an incomprehensible superhuman power. Ortiz searches for concrete reassurances of faith and hope in ' the ultimate,' as he puts together a collection of objects of unsurpassed excellence (Muensterberger 1994). A number of antiquities collectors feel a special affiliation with their antiquities based on a belief that they knew these objects in a previous life (Belk 1990), something to which Otiiz adheres. In describing how he amassed his collection Otiiz maintains that the objects came to him: ''they came to me because they knew I would love them, understand them, would give them back their identity and supply them with a context" (Ortiz 1994). In their seminal work on contemporary classical collecting, Chippindale and Gill (2000: 500) state "we do not agree with George 01iiz that it is scholarship that gives an object back its context or even that any good scholar can recreate the context." Inferred context on an 182 See Chapter 7 for further examination of the purchase of a Dead Sea Scroll fragment by Hanan Eshel. 136 item without provenience is merely conjecture and completely unreliable, leaving too many unanswered questions. The imagery of miifacts speaking is echoed in the study of Israeli collectors by Danet and Katriel (1989), in which they relate the story of a Franciscan priest who collects biblical archaeological atiifacts. The ptiest spoke of walking in the desert with a group of tourists when suddenly his eye caught sight of an object half buried in the sand; he continued walking, but in the end he had to go back because the object "kept calling" him (Danet and Katriel 1989: 257) [emphasis mine]. Waiter Benjamin in his celebrated essay "Unpacking My Library" describes the collector's relationship with his artifact: as he sees the object in his hands, he seems to be seeing through them into their distant past as though inspired (Benjamin 1973: 61). For both Benjamin and Otiiz objects are potials to the past, which provide inspiration in the present, and hope for the future. By allowing his collection to be displayed Otiiz pmiicipates in the owner's covert need to hear pronouncements of praise and admiration: by displaying his collection he is really saying "admire the Greek vase, which is me"- blurring the distinction between fetishism and collecting (Ellen 1988). Similar to Borowski, his benevolence in allowing the public to view his collection is belied by the spiritual message he hopes the viewer will gain. He also exhibits some of the characteristics of a Good Collector by claiming to collect chance finds which are saved by the market for the good of society, and by providing a means by which the public can view beauty and truth (Chippindale and Gill 2000: 501). Contemporaries ofOtiiz, Leon Levy and Shelby White also view themselves as benevolent collectors who believe that they collect to benefit others, for the greater good of society. vi) Shelby White and Leon Levy183 "Two decades ago [the early 1970s], we raised our hands at an auction and became the owners of a Roman Head of a Philosopher. We bought an ancient sculpture but scarcely realised then that it would mark the beginning of a collection" (White and Levy 1990: ix). With this first purchase the collecting odyssey that would involve thousands of dollars, initiate an archaeological publication program, sponsor excavations, 183 Mr. Levy passed away in April of2003, Shelby White, his wife and collecting pattner, continues to buy archaeological artifacts from the Near East. 137 and provide artifacts for museum exhibitions and long-term loans was launched. Discussing their collecting practices, White (1998: 170) states "as collectors we believe we are preserving and expanding knowledge of the past. We didn't think of ourselves as collectors when we bought our first antiquities." Shelby White and Leon Levy are consummate collectors, and embody many of the qualities of a Good Collector (as defined by Mclntosh, Togola, and Mclntosh, 1995), but at the same time are embroiled in some of the fiercest ongoing battles for the restitution of archaeological material- the Weary Herakles, the Icklingham Bronzes, and the recent assertions by the Italian government that at least seven of the artifacts (documents indicate that the purchase of the miifacts were associated with convicted antiquities dealer Giacomo Medici) in the White and Levy collection were illegally removed from Italy 184 (Horowitz 2006). White and Levy may have "stumbled" into collecting but they established themselves leading experts in the collecting world, and have amassed one of the most impressive collections of archaeological material. By their own admission White and Levy state, "Our curiosity then led us to wonder about the civilizations and the antiquities that came before and followed that of ancient Greece." They continue "but our collection had to stop somewhere and does not include any Egyptian a1i" (White and Levy 1990: ix). Why? In their examination of White and Levy's collection exhibited at the Metropolitan Museum of Ati, New York, Gill and Chippindale (1993) question the goal fmmation 185 processes that entered into the collecting psyche of White and Levy. They suggest that White and Levy are privileging and idolizing Greece over more academically logical progressions of the collection. "The collector, like White and Levy who wishes to extend backward from a nucleus of I Classical material, has a choice between a cultural continuity, which leads toward Egypt, and a geographical continuity which leads toward Cycladic" (Gill and Chippindale 1993: 648). Gill and Chippindale invoke the theories expounded by Martin Bemal in Black Athena 186 as influencing (consciously or subconsciously) the collecting choices made by White and Levy. Rather than choose Egypt- a cultural continuity as espoused by Bemal 184 For a detailed discussion of this and other issues sunounding the restitution of cultural material see Chippindale and Gill 2000, Horowitz 2006, Renfrew 2000b and Watson 1997. 185 See section III of this chapter for a discussion of stage I ofMcintosh and Schmeichel 2004. 186 For futiher discussion see Bern a! 1987. For criticism of Bemal see Early 1998, Lefkowitz and Rogers 1996. 138 . (1987) - White and Levy have chosen a geographical continuity or perhaps a classical continuity and the high ideals that are associated with the birthplace of democracy. This privileging of the Classical world is also evident in the White-Levy Publication Program funding practices. In their quest for infmmation on provenience they were appalled at the publication rates for excavated archaeological sites. In White and Levy's eyes the excitement of collecting is not only the joy of possessing a beautiful . object but the fascination of discovering the links between that object and its place in history (White and Levy 1990). As a result in 1997 they established the "Shelby White- Lean Levy Program for Archaeological Publications," at Harvard University, which has to date, awarded over six million dollars in funds for the publication of archaeological excavations. 187 Since 1997, 123 grants have been awarded to excavations spanning the prehistoric period through the Islamic period. Figure 5.8 depicts the regional distribution of grants: the majority going to the Classical world- the Levant and the Aegean. Funding has also been awarded to publication of material from the Balkans, Cyprus, Iran and Mesopotamia. Once again the cultural continuity of Egypt is eschewed in favour of the geographical continuity and idealism of the Classical world. Figure 5.8 187 Levant 59% Balkans Iran 1% 2% Aegean 27% Regional Distribution of White-Levy Grants (1997- present). It should be noted that there are archaeologists and academic institutions (Bryn Mawr and the University ofCincinnati among them) who decline to apply for funds from the White-Levy publication program in protest of the often suspect collecting practices of White and Levy. 139 (1987) - White and Levy have chosen a geographical continuity or perhaps a classical continuity and the high ideals that are associated with the bitthplace of democracy. This privileging of the Classical world is also evident in the White-Levy Publication Program funding practices. In their quest for inf01mation on provenience they were appalled at the publication rates for excavated archaeological sites. In White and Levy's eyes the excitement of collecting is not only the joy of possessing a beautiful . object but the fascination of discovering the links between that object and its place in history (White and Levy 1990). As a result in 1997 they established the "Shelby White- Lean Levy Program for Archaeological Publications," at Harvard University, which has to date, awarded over six million dollars in funds for the publication of archaeological excavations. 187 Since 1997, 123 grants have been awarded to excavations spanning the prehistoric period through the Islamic period. Figure 5.8 depicts the regional distribution of grants: the majority going to the Classical world- the Levant and the Aegean. Funding has also been awarded to publication of material from the Balkans, Cyprus, Iran and Mesopotamia. Once again the cultural continuity of Egypt is eschewed in favour of the geographical continuity and idealism of the Classical world. Figure 5.8 Levanl 59% Balkans Iran 1% 2% Mesopolamia S% Cyprus Aegean 27% Regional Distribution of White-Levy Grants (1997- present). 187 It should be noted that there are archaeologists and academic institutions (Bryn Mawr and the University of Cincinnati among them) who decline to apply for funds from the White-Levy publication program in protest of the often suspect collecting practices of White and Levy. 139 When questioned why Egyptian excavations are not eligible for grants from the White Levy publication program, the spokesperson stated that there was other money out there for unpublished excavatioi1 material from that region of the Mediterranean (Archaeologist 25). While the reasons behind White and Levy's decision not to collect and/or fund the publication of Egyptian archaeological material and sites may never be discemable, they are very interesting to ponder. In his introduction to the Glories of the Past, the Met exhibition showcasing some of White and Levy's more treasured possessions, director Philippe de Montebello (1990), discusses the personal vision of White and Levy. "They are not innocents in the game of collecting but passionate, educated, cultivated consumers who have brought together a remarkable collection in a short period of time" (de Montebello 1990). White and Levy are excellent examples of collectors who exhibit some of the classic characteristics of a need for public acknowledgement of their prowess vis-a-vis their artifacts. Acceptance of one's collection into a museum exhibit, or in some instances even creating the museum from a collection- as in the case of Borowski and the Bible Lands Museum- is the ultimate in legitimisation of the activity (Hughes 1987). The act of exhibiting validates both the collector and the collection by instilling an authenticity to the pieces and reaffirming the collector's,intelligence and expertise. Whether White and Levy are fulfilling their roles as Good Collectors by allowing scholarly and public access to their collection through exhibition; or if they are gasping for imrn01tality through public display, they are munificent in their loans and gifts to museums. White (1998: 172) maintains that when they buy objects, they routinely check the relevant registers (Art Loss, FBI, Interpol) to determine if the artifact they are purchasing has been rep01ted missing, looted, or stolen. This defence is often proffered by consumers (the Getty Museum among them) of archaeological material, but the listing of a stolen artifact does not prevent its appearance in the market and its subsequent purchase by collectors. In a recent expose of the Greek antiquities market, the documentary Network, Jerome Eisenberg, director ofRoyal-Athena Gallery in discussing the discovery of looted items from the Corinth Museum theft in his galleries ' inventory, states: "When I was considering the purchase of these pots I checked with the FBI register and they weren't there so I bought them" (Network 2005). High-end collectors like White and Levy, 140 . dealers, and museums all assert that they are concerned with the entire story of an mtifact from its creation, through the previous owners, to its final resting place. But can White and Levy ever really know the histories of the objects in their possession? Gill and Chippindale (1993: Table 15) in their analysis of the provenience of material in the Glories of the Past exhibit illustrate that of the 230 pieces in the exhibition, 94% are of unknown provenience (using such descriptors as "said to be"; "possibly"; and "unknown"). By purchasing material on the att market with suspect provenience, the find spots, histories, and archaeological associations of these mtifacts are only speculative. For some people, like White and Levy, the pleasure of amassing objects is increased by knowing that the activity suppmts scholarship, science and att; for others, the satisfactions are entirely personal, but the results are nevertheless of public benefit (Tanselle 1998). They view themselves as caretakers of art- for when you are a collector, a caretaker is what you become (White and Levy 1990). "As collectors we take pride in knowing that the works of mt in our collection are viewed by visitors to the museums to which we continually loan them" (White 1998). Renfrew (2000a: 78) counters this sentiment by asserting that "museum exhibitions are merely vehicles for those who seek public recognition and esteem on the basis of their collections when these contain recently purchased,unprovenienced material," reaffirming his stance that the Good Collector of unprovenienced material does not exist and that White and Levy's good intentions are over-shadowed by their more nefarious practices. The following section is an examination of the practice of collecting- HOW- applicable to both low-end and high-end consumers of Near Eastern archaeological material. Ill. HOW- THE PROCESS OF COLLECTING In their 2004 paper Mclntosh and Schrneichel (2004: 89) outline eight cmcial characteristics defining the practices of collectors. An examination of these characteristics with respect to both high-end and low-end collectors is useful in illuminating the process of collecting. What follows is a discussion of each aspect with additional evidence from relevant publications and my own research. 141 1. Goal Formation: deciding what to collect. The choices that potential collectors make are not arbitrary but are informed and guided by culture, history, society and associated ownership of the object- the biography of the artifact. 188 These choices are due in part to what John Hicks (1963: 166) argues, "for the consumer, the commodities which he purchases are for the most part means to attainment of objectives, not objectives themselves." In the examples of high-end Near Eastern artifact collectors -Borowski, Dayan and Moussaieff- the decision of what to collect is connected to their desire to confirm biblical narratives (Borowski 1979, Kletter 2003, Shanks 1996) and to establish a Jewish presence in the Holy Land. For example, the act of purchasing a jar handle with a LMLK seal links the purchaser with Hezekiah, a King of Judah 189 (see Figure 5.9). The ability to purchase such an artifact from a dealer in the Holy Land reinforces the historical ties to the region. Figure 5.9 LMLK seal (Image from ). Both merchants and buyers are attentive to the implicit and explicit forces at work in the marketplace. These underlying currents play a role in the decision making processes of the low-end and high-end collector. What at first glance appears to be a simple exchange of goods may in fact be what Heilman (1988: 261) refers to as cultural 188 See the earlier discussion in this chapter of what Mackenzie refers to as the celebrity factor (Mackenzie 2005a). 189 LMLK (lamed-mem-lamed-kaf, meaning belonging to the king) seal impressions are found in and around Jerusalem on jar handles. They are often interpreted as royal stamps that may refer to a biblical king of Judah or possibly God. Seal impressions are highly collectible for their connection to Jewish identity. For more information on LMLK seals see< http://www.lmlk.com/research/index.html>. 142 performance in which all of the actors are assigned patts. The mere jar handle becomes a signifier of a connection to the Jewish past and the tourist acquires something a King (perhaps a perceived ancestor) once owned, from a dealer in Jerusalem's Old City. Goods act as information systems and conveyors of a particular culture (Douglas and Ishetwood 1996 (1979): 66) which reflects the purchasers goals. In order to meet these goals, collectors must make informed decisions about the attifacts they are purchasing and to do that they need information and background knowledge. 2. Gathering information: research into the provenience, ownership history, prices of comparable material. As patt of the infmmation gathering process many collectors are interested in the background of a piece: where it came from in the world, who owned previously, how much it sold for, and/or how much similar pieces sell for in the market. The associative value of the ex-Teddy Kollek or ex-Moshe Dayan collection is carefully considered by some consumers. The "past lives" of attifacts are relevant to the desirability of archaeological material and can add value (both monetary and emotional) to the piece in question. While infmmation on provenience is desirable it does not always play a factor in whether or not a piece is purchased. A characteristic shared by both low-end collectors and high-end collectors is their ability to ignore (or their complete lack of awareness) of the illegal aspects of the legal trade in antiquities. "Tourists may or may not be collectors, but tourism often provides a nursery and training ground for them. The easy access of tourists to cultural sites, and the contrast for impoverished local populations of their wealth and leisure, readily engenders a body of workers willing to supply a market which is not demanding of credentials, provenance or documentation." (Prott and O'Keefe 1989: 54) Prott and 0 'Keefe ( 1989) state that it is the tourists' lack of interest in documentation that creates a situation where illegality is rife. In my research, not a single interview with low- end consumers elicited statements about provenience. The only time it came up was in discussing potential biblical associations of the object in a particular shop. Low-end collectors seemed unaware of the relationship between the mtifact they were purchasing and the archaeological site (whether looted recently or a legitimately available artifact) from where it originated. They were all concerned with whether the pot came from 143 . Bethlehem or somewhere Jesus may have been, but were indifferent to the fact that it may have been looted recently, transpmted illegally from the PA to Israel, or that the dealer was in violation of the AL 1978. In none of the transactions did I witness the purchaser ask for an export license, even though in two instances I know that the low-end collector was aware of the need for an expmt license (Collectors 6 and 9). Gazin- Schwmtz (2004: 1 00) reminds us that "archaeologists experience the past through direct engagement with its material culture". In antiquities shops throughout Israel low-end collectors also "experience the past through a direct engagement with its material culture," a material culture that may be devoid of its archaeological context, but nonetheless meaningful to the purchaser. This lack of concem is not limited to low-end purchases of US $5 - US $20. High-end collectors spending thousands of dollars often turn a blind eye to issues of provenience, illegal export, and the looting of archaeological sites. Like many of the dealers I interviewed, they see no relationship between their demand for archaeological material and the pillaging of sites to supply the market. The examination of demand and the looting of archaeological sites is central to the research hypothesis of this thesis: whether the legal trade in antiquities has any effect on archaeological site destmction. High-end colleetors Shelby White and Leon Levy explain their information gathering processes in a detailed account, which also serves as justification for their seemingly unethical purchases (White 1998). White describes the energy and time required to amass particular infmmation on pieces they may be considering for acquisition (White 1998). Moshe Dayan had an elaborate network of archaeologists, dealers, infmmants, looters, and military personnel who supplied the information he required in order to raid a site, acquire an object, or visit antiquities dealers. Both Leo Mildenberg and Elie Borowski used their academic backgrounds and connections in Near Eastem studies to aid in their quest for attifacts. 3. Planning and Courtship: fmmulating an acquisition plan. At this stage many collectors fmm an emotional attachment to the desired object or to the idea of owning such an object. This element of emotional attachment is illustrated in the case studies of Leo Mildenberg and George Ottiz, both of whom exhibited a poignant affinity with the inanimate objects in their collections. In this stage, collected items become what Baudrillard (1981) refers to as 'signifiers of memories' for the collector, artifacts which act as emblems of a past, a present, or a future, signs of class, taste, and wealth and intellectual prowess. "I cannot visit the Sinai every day, but I can get a daily glimpse of the inscribed Nubian sandstone from Sinai by looking through my window" writes Dayan (1978: 89) in his memoir Living With the Bible. For Dayan the stone signifies a connection to the land, to the Bible, to his forefathers. Many artifacts, although originally produced with a utilitarian purpose, are now recontextualised into objects valuable in symbolic terms. Akin (1996) has argued that the artifact is now a commodity, removed from its intended use and now considered a passionate possession. Archaeological mtifacts become what Appadurai (1986: 15) would consider "commodities by metamorphosis" or things intended for uses other than their original that are placed in the commodity state. Collecting decontextualises and recontextualises the materials and imbues them with new meaning for the possessor. For Baudrillard (1994: 7) the act of collecting divests objects of their original function, forcing them to share a relationship with their contemporary patron. For the low-end collector the gathering and planning and comtship stages can be abbreviated all happening in the span of a single visit. Tourists to the Holy Land may come with preconceived notions of what materially represents their visit, but once in the Old City of Jerusalem and after visiting some of the religious and archaeological sites this 'ideal' concept may change. As mentioned previously, the search for the perfect mtifact might actually constitute a very impmtant aspect of the collecting process. 4. The Hunt: the next step in this nanative of the collecting process is to find and purchase the beloved object, CiOnsidered by many the most desirable aspect of collecting (Danet and Katriel 1989). For most collectors, private or public, the hunt is an important aspect of amassing a1tifacts. Thomas Hoving (1975) mticulately demonstrates the hunt met~phor in his collection of essays The Chase, The Capture: Collecting at the Metropolitan. As illustrated in the discussion of Moshe Dayan, the hunt was the key motivating factor in his quest to amass an extraordinary collection of Near Eastern mtifacts. The rarer the object or the more difficult it is to obtain, bestows a greater distinction on the successful possessor. 145 5. Acquisition: the transaction of purchasing the sought after item can be sacred. In this account once acquired the piece becomes part of the collector's self. This sacredness may be enhanced through a magical connection to the artifact's creator or prior owner, through acquisition and handling of the item (Belk 1995b ). This phenomenon was evident at the auction I attended in Tel A viv. Many of the buyers (comprised of both low-end tourists and high-end collectors; foreigners and Israeli nationals) in the audience were only interested in pieces that were from the Teddy Kollek or Moshe Dayan collections- thus enhanced by with the celebrity status of former ownership by a famous Israeli. The gentleman seated in front of me bid on every item from the Teddy Kollek collection ilTespective of its condition, price, or time period. Prominent past ownership allows collectors to bask in reflected glory. By purchasing a celebrated object the collector may accrue self-benefits simply by aligning the self with the previous owner - possessions as extended self (Baekeland 1981, Belk 1991, Belk 1995b, Mclntosh and Schmeichel 2004). 190 In the acquisition stage, where money changes hands, artifacts have an exchange value in the classic Marxian concept, so that collected artifacts become commodities in that they have an exchange value (Marx 1975 (1844)) . For Appadurai (1986) the economic exchange itself creates value for the a1tifact. Once an mtifact is placed in the marketplace to be collected it takes on a new set ofmeanings (see Figure 5.10). Artifact Continuum Artifact (original use) - Byzantine Oil Lamp with a menorah used for lighting Collected artifact (commodity) - venerated collectible used to confirm the Jewish past Movement from use value to symbolic value Figure 5.10 The Near Eastem Aliifact Continuum. 190 See earlier references in this chapter regarding celebrity and snob factors also associated with previous owners of a1iifacts and perception of consumers. · 146 No longer the utile, ubiquitous lamp for lighting a darkened room; the collected Byzantine oil lamp with the menorah stamp becomes an esteemed item used to confilm the Jewish past. The artifact's meaning is transfmmed from one of function to one that is socially or ideologically based in its contemporary context. The lamp is unlikely to be again used as a lighting device and the oil lamp is now an example of the existence of Jews in the Levant. Meaning of the collectible is not always, art, a connection to the past, technological achievement, or utility, rather the thrill of the hunt and acquisitions also play an important role in the consumption of archaeological atiifacts. 6. Post Acquisition: ownership of a patiicular piece can confer membership in a privileged group. Many at the Tel A viv auction were on very friendly te1ms. The same was true at the Leo Mildenberg Collection of Ancient Animals sale at the Christie's Antiquities auction in London in October of 2004. There are small networks of collectors, especially those within the high-end group. They are competitors, comrades, and friends, but they can also be brokers, conspirators, and dealers in the exchange of items between collectors. Once the object has been acquired it can take on a new series of meanings: it provides irrefutable evidence of the collector's acumen; a potential link to the past as is the case for some collectors of Near Ea stem atiifacts; a sense of immmiality; an enhanced feeling of accomplishment and self-worth; culminating in a heightened self- esteem, affirmation and visible proof that conveys the collector's excellent taste, an appreciation for the finer things in life, or evidence of a visit to a distant land. 7. Manipulation, Display, and Caretaking: the collector in possession of an artifact is now in control of the disposition, the exhibition, and the interpretation of the item. In this stage of the process high-end collectors like Dayan, Ortiz, White and Levy, and Borowski, often arrange for the public display of their collections in prestigious galleries like the Metropolitan Museum of A1i in New York, the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, and the Royal Academy in London. Focal to this stage is disseminating to the public both the rare pieces in their collections while simultai1eously displaying their own artistic sensibilities, intellectual acumen and financial prowess at being the caretakers of the past. For the low-end collector this stage can involve the display of the souvenir of their visit to the Holy Land within in their own home. Visitors, family, and friends can 147 share the experience vicariously through the purchased item, which conveys the essence of the lived experience- a tangible connection to the past. 8. Ongoing Process: collecting is an ongoing process may never end. Once collectors have acquired a particular piece they return to the earlier stages of planning and courtship to repeat the cycle through their next purchase. For the low-end collector making what might be a "once in a lifetime trip", the process can be ongoing through the intemet and the availability of material from the Near East on the various dealer's websites. Globalization has made once insurmountable issues of access conquerable. Having examined the WHY, WHO, and HOW of consumption what remains to be investigated is the WHAT- what the impact of collecting is on the legal market. IV. WHAT- THE IMPACf OF CONSUMPTION ON THE LEGAL MARKET In their groundbreaking article on the effects of looting in Israel and the P A, Ilan, Dahari and Avni (1989: 42) state that the bulk of antiquities sales are made to low-end souvenir buyers in Jerusalem' s Old City (see Figure 5.11). In their analysis of the trade of antiquities in the late 1980s in Israel they estimated that 80% of the people entering Figure 5.11 Tourists Shopping in the Old City of Jerusalem . . 148 antiquities shops were tourists and 67% of those bought an antiquity, usually of less than US $20 in value (Ilan, Dahari, and Avni 1989: 42). These statistics bear similar resemblance to today's situation in Israel 191 • Through interviews and observations I determined that most of the people entering antiquities shops in Israel are tourists and a little more than half usually come away with something, a memento of their visit. Statistics on high-end purchases are much harder to gather for the region given the secretive nature ofthe trade and transactions when large amounts of money are being exchanged. The purchasing power of low-end and high-end collectors of Near Ea stem archaeological material is impmtant to the respective economies of Israel and the P A. The sphere of influence of these consumers is evident in the framing of legislative policies, the looting of archaeological sites, and the tourism indush-y. In a discussion (Chapter 4) of the development of cultural heritage law in Israel and the P A the sway of high-end collectors like Teddy Kollek and Moshe Dayan is apparent in the eventual legitimisation of the trade through a system of licensed dealers. A similar situation exists in the PA, where law makers are presently discussing a draft of cultural heritage legislation containing provisions for an in-country legal trade and an ambiguous interpretation of whether cultural heritage is "owned" by the public or privately. Numerous interviews (Dealers 2, 6, 21-23, 35; Govemment Employees 10 and 15; Miscellaneous 6) confi1med the influence of Palestinian collectors, dealers, and those associated with tourism venture in the cunent manifestation of the law. 192 The influence of the high-end collector coupled with the potential revenue generating of the low-end tourist purchase, combine to create the perfect setting for a legally sanctioned trade in antiquities. Demand for antiquities not only shapes policy and legislation it also impacts the destruction ofthe archaeological landscape. Examples in Chapters 6, 7, and 8 clearly demonstrated the relationship between demand and the looting of archaeological sites. The demand for a pmticular type of coin by a tourist in Jerusalem led to the further looting of sites in the Hebron region (Chapter 6). The relationship between demand and the looting of archaeological sites was identified as one of the key themes arising from 191 Pre-intifada tomist levels. See footnote 172 this chapter for fmiher discussion. 192 See Chapter 4 for a discussion of the 5°' Draft Cultural and Natural He1itage Law of the P A. 149 the interviews with the various stakeholders in the trade. Chapter 7 provides a detailed analysis of the interest group responses and further examples demonstrating that demand for a particular item results in the illicit excavation of sites associated with the recovery of that item. A further aspect of demand can be expressed through consumption- the demand for national identity. In light of Handler's (1985) work on nationalism, preservation, and cultural identity, the significance of the relationship between the looting of archaeological sites, the market for artifacts, and the collecting of ancient objects and the national identities of those nations states whose cultural heritage is being plundered is of paramount importance when considering the rationale behind demand. Nowhere is this truer than in Israel and the P A. In Chapter 3, I discuss the development of the construction oflsraeli national identity through a long association with excavation and a desire for rootedness for a displaced immigrant society. At the same time the phenomenon of Palestinian looting of archaeological sites as a f01m of resistance has engendered a different relationship with the material past. The presence and the absence of cultural objects, which cannot be replicated or renewed, add a fmiher layer to the complexity of the object as signifying the national identity (Barkan 2002). Both Israelis and Palestinians are entangled in the legal market for mtifacts. Through the processes of production, distribution, and consumption each nation's relationship with cultural heritage is defined and delineated. In their seminal work on goods and consumption Douglas and Ishe1wood ( 1996 (1979): 3) highlight the importance of demand when considering consumption: "It is extraordinary to discover that no one knows why people want goods. Demand theory is at the very centre, even at the origin of economics as a discipline yet 200 years of thought on the subject has little to show on the question." Demand is central to many facets of the trade in antiquities, and this chapter examining the consumption of archaeological mtifacts by low-end and high-end collectors of Near Eastem artifacts is only the beginning of much needed analysis. Most commentators agree that once collected - removed from their original use - mtifacts are inscribed with new meanings, which reflect the innumerable views and values of auction houses, dealers, collectors, curators, and middlemen, apart from their 150 original creator's purposes. Artifacts collected from the Holy Land, decontextualised from their original find spots can often tell us much more about the collectors and the cunent collecting climate th~m the Iron Age. This is, in pati, the reason for examining collections and collecting. The previous three chapters have demonstrated that archaeological material is readily available through various modes of production, a mechanism exists to distribute the material, and there are willing consumers. The next logical avenue of investigation in assessing the free-market position of legalising the trade in antiquities as an answer to the looting of archaeological sites is how the legal market for antiquities in Israel actually works in practice. The focus of Chapter 6 is the types of conduits these artifacts pass through on their way to the consumer as illustrated by a case study following the pathway of an artifact. CHAPTER SIX A MARKET ANALYSIS OF THE TRADE IN ANTIQUITIES "No thinking person argues for free trade in cultural property. Regulation is necessary in order to preserve cultural prope1iy and to suppmi its proper international circulation." (Merryman 2005: 12) After examining the production - distribution - consumption model, the next step of understanding the mechanisms of trade is crucial to an infmmed analysis of networks, actors, and nodes involved in moving archaeological material from the ground to the consumer. Comprehension of the intricacies of the trade allows for a reasoned analysis of the various stakeholder responses regarding the legal market (to follow in Chapter 7) and sets the stage for a contemplative discussion of potential counte1measures available to protect against archaeological site destruction. The investigation into the pathway of a coin manifestly illustrates the causal relationship between supply (the looting of sites) and demand (the collecting of a1iifacts) . This chapter sets out a model of the trade in antiquities, highlighting its defining or unique features, while also providing concrete data illustrating the pathway of an miifact. Recent repmis-(Brodie, Doole, and Renfrew 2001, Brodie and Tubb 2002) indicate that archaeological sites are being looted at an almming rate and the looted material can be found in antiquities shops, auction houses and on eBay (Elia 2001). The amount of available archaeological resources is finite, and yet with myriad claims of provenance proffered by antiquities dealers, that the atiifacts are from "old family collections" or "recent museum deaccessions," there seems to be an infinite and apparently legal supply of archaeological material. The trade and the pathways artifacts travel are poorly understood and consequently the controls are inadequately targeted (Mackenzie 2002). Today's antiquities trade functions within the context of legal and illegal markets, high retums on investment, decreasing supply of archaeological material and continued demand for cultural artifacts. The illegal antiquities market is frequently compared to other major intemational criminal enterprises especially drug trafficking and a1ms smuggling (Alder and Polk 2002, Bemick 1998, Borodkin 1995, Polk 1999, Polk 2000). Although it shares many 152 characteristics with other illegal markets, there is at least one fundamental difference: by passing through a series of markets or pmtals, as they are referred to by Polk (2000), the · objects are transfmmed from Illegal to legal, that is, in market parlance, they are laundered. Trafficking in antiquities blurs the lines between illegal and legal markets and between criminal and legitimate participants. Whereas the traffic in dmgs is always illegal- meaning that the buyer is as culpable as the seller- in sharp contrast, the ultimate buyer of illegally excavated antiquities can often purchase them openly and legally, seemingly without engaging in illegal activity (Polk 2000: 83). I. A MODEL FOR THE TRADE IN ANTIQUITIES The majority of markets consist of intetmediaries between the first seller and the final buyer of the commodity. Polk (2000: 84) asserts that what distinguishes the traffic in antiquities from other criminal markets is that most of the material must at some point enter the market as legitimate commodities in order for the goods to realise their full economic value. Savvy antiquities collectors understand the impmtance of provenience, although they often choose to ignore this issue when considering the purchase of a patticular item193 (Roving 1993). This need for the assurance of good title (at least in appearance) has created specialised market nations, the main purpose of which is to act as a transit point from the irchaeologically-rich country to the buying country. In Argentina, Hong Kong, and Switzerland, for example, antiquities can pass through a market that impatts legitimacy to the goods being purchased (Alder and Polk 2002, Kunitz 2001, Schavelzon 2002). The path of an illegal antiquity from its illegal excavation in the archaeologically-rich country, through various transit points to its eventual expmtation to and sale in the destination country, can have many variations. 194 A simplified sequence is presented in Figure 6.1. An impmtant aspect of the figure to be considered is that the sale of an archaeological artifact can occur at anytime in the sequence if there is a willing buyer. An examination of the conduits tlU'ough which illegally excavated antiquities are 193 S.ee Thomas Having (1993) for an expose ofthe Met overlooking troubling issues ofprovenience in reference to the Euphronios Vase and the Lydian Hoard, both of which has been (or are in the processing of being) repatJiated to their count1ies of origin. 194 For an interesting discussion of the chain of supply of an illicit antiquities market see Mackenzie 2002, 2005b. 153 routed on their way to a "legitimate" home is critical to understanding the trade in antiquities and how to develop countermeasures to looting. ARCHAEOLOGICALLY-RICH MARKETS Illegal Artifacts Figure 6.1 TRANSIT MARKETS (two types) 1. Geographically Advantaged States 2. Art Market States Artifact Laundering DESTINATION MARKETS "Legal" At1ifacts Market flow of the Trade in Antiquities. A. Archaeologically-Rich Markets The archaeologically-rich market is based primarily on individuals, families, and organised bands of looters who supply antiquities for the more controlled components of the trade. Local people195 are usually responsible for the looting of archaeological sites, churches, and museums. This type of activity does not lead to great financial payoffs for the looters. They sell to middlemen, who take the goods to re-sell to the antiquities dealers at a hefty mark-up (Brodie 1998b ). Typically, it is the middlemen who retain the majority of the profits, while the finders of the artifacts often receive less than 1% of the eventual retail value of their looted goods (Borodkin 1995: 377). Once the items have been obtained from the looters, complex networks develop in order to handle the traffic in material. It is here that we see the emergence of organised 195 See Chapter 3 for fmiher discussion of looters. 154 criminal activity, given the need for movement on a regular and systematic basis (Freiberg 1997: 23 7). At this juncture, the antiquity is still a stolen item, with no legal provenance, illegally acquired and illegally exported. It is usually smuggled out of the country of origin to a transit point via the airp01i in tourist luggage, on container ships 196, or in diplomatic pouches 197. In some cases, thefts are pre-ordered by dealers and collectors. In China for example, instances of"selling-to-order" have involved a looter showing photographs of mi available in a poorly guarded museum to a prospective buyer, stealing the selected items and ananging for their transp01i out of China (Alder and Polk 2002). Changes in supply can create new f01ms of demand-the market is intentionally flooded with a new genre in response to a newly created aesthetic fad. A cunent example is the demand for Spanish colonial ari, which has caused a significant increase in the looting of churches in Central and South America for items to adom homes in Spain and the United States (Luke 2003). The various types of markets are not necessarily geographically separate and may occur within the same country or state. Archaeologically-rich market countries can also serve as centres of demand, as in the trade in Native American artifacts in the United States. To illustrate this-point is it useful to retum to the case of the controversial ossuary. According to the purchaser, the ossuary was looted from a tomb near Jerusalem by local villagers (the archaeologically-rich market) and then offered for sale in an antiquities shop in Jerusalem's Old City (the transit market) . The Israeli collector (the destination market) who purchased the ossuary claims to have kept it in his home without realising the significance of the inscription until an experi epigrapher pointed it out. Thus the entire process of the artifact's movement from the ground to the ultimate consumer took place in a single region. Fmiher examples of geographically united markets include the 196 A recent seizure of a shipping container at the port of Haifa in Israel revealed a large quantity of archaeological material destined for the United States (Govemment Employee 19) . 197 See Staffan Lunden's (2004) work on exposing the involvement of Swedish diplomats and the movement of archaeological mate1ial. Dealers ( 1, 2, 32, 46, and 57) in Israel and the P A confi1med that diplomats purchasing archaeological material often stated that they had no need for an export license as the mateJia1 was going home in a pouch. A dealer ( 1) gave me the name of a potential interviewee (a fmmer diplomat posted to Israel) whom he thought would make an excellent addition to my collector category. I contacted the diplomat and we ananged to meet for an interview but in the end the event never took place, for whatever reasons the diplomat decided not to pa~iicipate in this study, which is very unfmiunate. 155 case of the Salisbury Hoard in England (Stead 1998) and numerous instances in the American Southwest (Axtman 2002). B. Transit Markets A common feature of successful transit markets is the lack of concern regarding how the material reached the given jurisdiction ("no questions asked"), thus opening up a market that is focused on successfully exporting the objects. A key criterion for an effective transit point is the status of free p01i198 where the laundering of the a1iifacts can occur and proper papers of exportation can be prepared (Polk 2000: 85). Crucial to this stage is that when goods are subsequently imported into the destination market they can be openly displayed in the most respectable establishments (like Sotheby's and Christie's). The situation is facilitated by the purchasers and the merchants, both of whom are either unaware of the origin of the goods being procured or choose not to question their origin. Prott and O'Keefe (1989: 352) state that there are two principal types of transit market countries: geographically advantaged states and a1i market states. The geographically advantaged states are those through which traders and smugglers must almost inevitably pass, if only briefly, because of their physical proximity to the archaeologically-rich country or their role as a regional hub. As a prime regional commercial area, Hong Kong is often cited as a major market and centre of trade in antiquities (Lunden 2004 ). Evidence exists that antiquities looted from Angkor Wat in Cambodia are brought to Hong Kong (ICOM 1997, Lafont 2004), "where the artifacts disappear into a semi-legitimate antiquities market that counts unwary international museums among its main customers" (Boyd 1994: 48). Israel is an excellent example of a geographically advantaged state due to its proximity to the PA- most of the looting in the area either takes place in the P A and/or is canied out by Palestinians, but feeds the legal market in Israel. Ma_ny of the geographically advantaged states, while conveniently located near archaeologically-rich areas- such as the Gulf States, often a conduit for material leaving 198 An intemational port at which cargo may be disembarked or unloaded, may remain , and may be transhipped without being subject to any customs charge or duties . Cargo in a free pott is exempt from restJictions in regard to trade; allowed to trade in any market or with any commodities; is open to all traders; and also is not subject to tax, toll , or duty (OED). the Middle East- are not well-positioned as shopping venues for dealers and collectors interested in purchasing archaeological mtifacts. Alt market states like Belgium, Ge1many and Switzerland provide both a setting for a1tifact laundering and a desirable location for a1t fairs and auction houses. The second type of transit market, identified by Prott and O'Keefe (1989: 533) is the art market state, in which services such as auction, valuation, and restoration are concentrated: "Traditionally, they [transit markets] have played a very imp01tant role in the movement of cultural prope1ty, even though the volume originating in different areas may have fluctuated widely". They cite the United Kingdom (UK) as an important transit state. Licensing requirements under the Waverley system (Committee on the Exp01t of Works of Alt Waverley Rep01t 1952) make the UK an ideal transit market. Based on a system dating back to World War II, the Imp01t, Exp01t and Customs Powers (Defence) Act was enacted in 1939 to prevent the outflow of capital and to protect foreign exchange reserves, as well as the nation's existing cultural heritage. All export applications are reviewed by the Board of Trade pursuant to criteria recommended by the Waverley Committee (Brodie 2002). In their discussion of export licensing and the Waverley criteria, Maurice and Turnor (1992: 273) suggest that the review process could actually be used to create a provenience. As a member of the European Union, the UK is also bound by European Union Council Regulation No. 3911/92 and European Union Council Directive 9317 (Brodie 1998a, O'Keefe 1997: 24-25). The former requires that exp01t licenses be issued for taking EU cultural material outside the EU countries, while removing internal baniers, thus enabling the free movement of goods within the EU (Brodie 1998a). The latter provides for the recovery of"national treasures" illegally exported to other countries within the European Union. Scholars have commented on the ineffectiveness of the regulations in both instances due to their cumbersome pape1work requirements; and neither restricts the issuing of UK or EU export licenses for artifacts from countries outside the EU (Brodie 1998a, O'Keefe 1997, Palm er 1995). While the UK has strict rules governing its own national treasures over fifty years old, exp01t licenses are much more freely granted for foreign material that has been in 157 England less than fifty years, allowing the British economy to benefit from the sale of the cultural heritage of other countries (Brodie 2002: 190). The UK's restrictions on the export of antiquities are aimed at protecting its own cultural heritage, rather than cmtailing the illegal trade in art (Prott and O'Keefe \989: 502). On a more positive note, progress toward closing the loopholes in protecting the cultural heritage of other nations was made in 2002 when the UK ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention. The British Parliament undertook further legislative measures by enacting the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 (for a detailed discussion see Gerstenblith fmthcoming). Switzerland's proximity to archaeologically-rich countries (Italy and the Balkans), laws favouring the good faith purchaser, and, until recently, a general unwillingness to patticipate fully in or enforce intemational regulation of cultural heritage have created another ideal a11 transit state (Watson fmthcoming). Historically, the Swiss have been very successful in promoting themselves as a conduit nation; the mt trade industry in Switzerland was valued at over US $2 billion nearly a decade ago (Greenfield 1996: 247). Launderers seek out those Swiss dealers who routinely look the other way and take great steps to conceal the illegal past of looted objects. Possessors of stolen items can store the works in private banks or at tax-free warehouses at Swiss airpmts and border crossings. After a statutory period and evidence of a good faith purchase the stolen piece belongs to the purchaser (Prott and O'Keefe 1989: 384, Watson fmthcoming). In 2003, Switzerland also ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention and enacted new legislation-the Federal Act on the Intemational Transfer of Cultural Propetty-that may change Switzerland's historic role as a transit country. 199 While the enactment of this legislation is cettainly a welcome step in the effort to prevent illegal dealing in stolen and illicitly excavated cultural objects, whether the law will have a discernible impact on Switzerland's role as a transit market in the laundering of illegal antiquities remains to be seen. Transit markets are where the conversion from illegal artifact to legal mtifact takes place. Once an expmtlicense is procured in those venues, the material can be successfully negotiated through customs, and retail functions can all be conducted openly 199 See Gerstenblith forthcoming, for a detailed discussion of Switzerland's recent legislation and its potential impact on the trade in antiquities . 1S8 and legally. By this time, the attifact has changed hands at least three times, making it much more difficult to prove exactly where the item came from, what borders it crossed, · and how long it has been in circulation. Often there is an attempt to provide provenience in these locations by the use of well-known and thoroughly suspect euphemisms, such as "from the collection of a Swiss gentleman" or "a collection in Hong Kong" (Alder and Polk 2002). C. Destination Markets Once the mtifact has passed through the transit point and receives a "clean bill of sale" it can enter the marketplace as a legitimate antiquity. Despite evidence that a large prop01tion of material is illicitly traded and is directly connected with other illegal activities (clandestine excavation, theft, illegal drugs, tenorism and possibly on occasion even murder200), some patticipants in the sales and destination markets are indifferent to the origin ofthe goods being sold (Prott and O'Keefe 1989: 539). These dealers, expetis, collectors, and museums prefer to look the other way and not ask questions about provenience and authenticity. Furthermore by not asking uncomfortable questions about where a piece originated and how it ended up on the market, legitimate dealers are colluding with the illegi~imate aspects of the market. Many wealthy individuals, dealers, auction houses, and museums collect and buy stolen and illegally exported (or excavated) art and antiquities, whether knowingly or unknowingly. 201 Bator (1983: 68) notes a remarkable characteristic of this market: 200 In his account of the int1igue surrounding the Sevso Treasure, journalist Peter Landesrnan suggests that Jozef Surnegh and two associates were murdered as a result of their involvement with the unemihing of the silver hoard (see Landesman 2001) . See Chapter 8 for fmiher insight into the relationship between the trade in antiquities and ten01ism and see also Bogdanos 2005b. 201 It should be noted that some museums do have codes of ethics and clearly stated positions on collecting unprovenienced mate1ial. The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology was among the first museums to release a statement, the Philadelphia Declaration, which asserts : "The curat01ial faculty of the University Museum today [April I, 1970] reached the unanimous conclusion that they would purchase no more a1i objects or antiquities for the Museum unless the objects are accompanied by a pedigree- that is, inf01mation about the different owners, place of oJigin, legality of exp01i, and other data useful in each individual case." (The Philadelphia Declaration, April I, 1970). The Getty Museum established an acquisition policy in 1995 signifying that it would acquire pieces only with a well- documented provenience (Renfrew 2000b), however recent headlines have demonstrated a somewhat liberal interpretation of this policy (see the recent news coverage of Mm·ion True, fom1er curator of antiquities at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, on tJial for c1iminal association and receipt of stolen prope1iy in connection with the Getty's acquisition of antiquities said to have been illegally unea1ihed in Italy and smuggled out of the country). Additionally the Association of A1i Museum Directors 159 "The most striking thing to a lawyer who comes upon the ati work is how deep and uncritical is the assumption that transactions within it should nmmally be-are cetiainly entitled to be-secret. .. No dealer or auction house will nmmally reveal the provenance of an object offered for sale; it is assumed that buyers and the public have no business knowing where and when and for how much the object was acquired .. .Indeed the tradition is that such information is rarely even sought . .. It is the propriety of secrecy which is assumed; and it is secrecy which enables persons, otherwise aspiring to the highest standards of personal probity, to become accomplices in the acquisition of looted masterpieces." The trade's own unspoken etiquette upholds a fas:ade of respectability that makes the provenience of a piece for sale a taboo subject (Renfrew 2000b: 37). Client confidentiality is often cited as the chief reason why dealers and auction houses refuse to provide provenience. Auction houses on the whole are subject to very little direct legal control of their activities. In the UK, and in some US states, they are not required to guarantee title or to examine provenience and usually include in their conditions of sale an exclusion of responsibility for genuineness, authorship, or provenance (Prott and O' Keefe 1989: 557). Recently the prevailing sentiment at auction houses concerning the usefulness of provenience has begun to change. However, although collectors are increasingly requesting the pedigree of the objects they are buying and although the pedigree is sometimes included in sale catalogues, the tacit agreement regarding secrecy remains. For some museums and collectors the familiar phrase "from the collection of a Swiss gentleman ... " attached to the antiquity in question still suffices. The element of secrecy is essential to the quasi-legaf02 nature of the market for antiquities: illegally looted atiifacts legally for sale in the most reputable of venues. is cunently redrafting their ethical guidelines as part of a continuing eff011 by the AAMD to establish general principles for antiquities collecting by museums, which would apply to shot1-tetm loans (see Eakin and Povoledo 2006). 202 Quasi-legal markets are those that possess both illegal and legal aspects. For the purposes of this thesis I am consideting the supposedly legal for antiquities in Israel as quasi-legal- looted material (illegally excavated) is sold in a legally sanctioned establishment and legally available for exp011 from Israel. 160 11. CASE STUDY: THE PATHWAY OF A CorN I walked by Dealer 36203 and his shoe-shine operation in Jemsalem every day for months, never suspecting that he also dealt in ancient coins until, in an interview with an archaeologist/coin collector (Archaeologist 18), I was told that he purchased most of his coins from Dealer 36. I then began to track Dealer 36's interactions with his various customers, with the local Palestinian women, and with a particular dealer (2) who routinely visited him. The popular notion (rightly or wrongly) is that coins will increase in value and one only needs to buy a few to profit financially. The possibility that ancient coins in Israel and the PA may come from the Temple from which Jesus drove out the moneychangers (John 2: 13-25) adds an extra dimension to their perceived potential value. Coins are an integral part of daily life and are handled on a daily basis, which allows for the easy concealment and transportation. The following relates how a coin travels from Hebron, a city in the P A, to New York City with few obstacles along the way (see Figure 6.2). A. Introduction Recent research has shown that some of the material for sale in the legally sanctioned shops in Israel comes from looted sites in the PA (Blum 2001, Ilan, Dahari, ' and Avni 1989, Kersel 2005, Keyser 2002) and licensed dealers are able to sell looted material by exchanging the register numbers of items already sold with those of a similar description that have newly appeared on the market. For a hypothetical example, when a tourist purchases a Herodian oil lamp, register number 147, from an officially sanctioned dealer, he or she receives a ce1tificate of authenticity (supplied by the dealer) and an expmtlicense (issued by the IA:A). The expmtlicense is only issued if the tourist remembers to ask for one; the onus is on the purchaser. If an expmtlicensed is requested the dealer then faxes a picture and object description or sends a digital image of the item in question to the anti-theft unit of the IAA. Someone in the unit checks the image and the description against the register of the dealer's inventory on file with the IAA. If the proposed item for export matches the register and nothing indicates a ban on 203 Dealer 36 is not officially licensed by the IAA, and therefore not officially permitted to trade in antiquities . 161 Figure 6.2 ARCHAEOLOGICALLY- RICHMARKET Women from Hebron Dealer 36 Illegal coin TRANSIT MARKET Geographically Advantaged State Dealer 36 Dealer 2 Laundered coin DESTINATION MARKET Collector 1 0 "Legally" expmied coin Pathway of a Coin from Hebron to New York City. exportation204 then the expmi license is issued to the consumer. Both a description of the item and the official register number appear on the export license. If the tourist does not acquire an expmi license the dealer can then reuse the register number because there is no fmmal record of the sale. If for example, the dealer has another Herodian oil lamp in his stores very similar in size, colour and design to lamp number 147, he then assigns the second oil lamp the register number 147 and places it among his inventory to be sold. This is a common practice verified tlU'ough a series of interviews with dealers (1, 2, 4, 55, 204 Under the AL 1978 (Chapter 4§ 19(a)) if the item is considered of national value it cannot be exported from the country. In some cases it can still be sold to an Israeli citizen under the provision that it remain in the counhy. 162 and 57), archaeologists (7, 9, 11, and 18) and govemment employees (2, 4, 7, 10, and 18). 205 While often proffered as a remedy for reducing the destruction and theft of archaeological artifacts, the licensing of dealers and the use of register systems are often suspected. O'Keefe (1997: 31-32) states that "theoretically a register would allow acquisitions of artifacts to be traced and should dissuade dealers from acquiring those with dubious provenance. In practice their effectiveness is questionable." As the situation in Israel demonstrates, the combination of overly broad descriptors and the lack of regular oversight make for a thriving trade in illegal material, which by all appearances seems legal. B. Artifact Pathway i) Archaeologically-Rich Market The village women in the Hebron area cultivate mint and herbs in their backyards for sale on the streets of East Jerusalem. Often while gathering produce for market, the women unemth ancient coins, and at times when economic circumstances are particularly tight, the local villagers dig for coins?06 Once the village women anive in Jerusalem207 they sell the coins to Dealer 36, one of the many shoeshine operators who dot the streets of East Jerusalem and the Old City. Dealer 36's spoken English is fairly good and he positions himself in an area of high tourist traffic area. Many of his shoeshine clientele are foreigners and he always offers to show them the coins in his pocket just in case they might like to buy a coin along with the shoeshine. On a good day, Dealer 36 can make anywhere from US $200 - US $300 selling two or three coins to a foreigner. At this point, 205 The falsifying of register numbers and miifact pedigree is not limited to the legal market in Israel see also the case of Fredetick Schultz, who was convicted of conspiting to deal in antiquities stolen from Egypt under the National Stolen Property Act. An interesting element of this case was the damning testimony of Schultz's British accomplice Jonathan Tokeley-Parry. In his statement Mr. Tokeley-Parry (previously convicted for handling stolen propetiy) claimed that he and Mr. Schultz fabticated a false provenience - the Thomas Alcock collection. Tokeley-Pany desctibed the technique of giving labels on the antiquities an ancient appearance by soaking them in tea and putting them in the microwave (Gerstenblith 2004b: 146). For further information on the Schultz case see Gerstenblith 2003, 2004a, and 2004b. Prott and O'Keefe ( 1989 : 665) also document an incident of falsified papers and the antiquities trade in India in the case of the bronze Nataraja (statue of a Hindu god) . "Its entry into the United States was facilitated by the production of a false export cetiificate at customs" (Brodie 2005: I 061 ). 206 See Chapter 3 for an examination of looters in Israel and the PA. 207 Under the cunent political conditions it is far easier for women than for men to travel between Hebron and Jerusalem than men. 163 Dealer 36, the middleman, is acting as a dealer of the coins; it is here in direct sales that his profit margin is at its highest. Dealer 36 has been in the shoe-shine/coin business for a long time (some fmty years) and has become quite knowledgeable about the coins sold to him. He can differentiate between the valuable, rarer pieces and the everyday run-of-the-mill coins. He sells the rarer coins to a licensed dealer (2) who visits him regularly. He sells the more prosaic coins to less savvy foreigners who may pay more than the estimated market value of the coin because they are unfamiliar with the market prices. ii) Transit Market Given the cunent disputed borders, Jerusalem, is an ideal, geographically advantaged transit market. Licensed antiquities dealers from the Old City or West Jerusalem can easily meet with Dealer 36 and examine the coins coming in from the P A. Dealer 36 buys the coins from the village women for a set price208 and then sells them to licensed dealers for at least ten times what he paid for them. The licensed dealer cleans the coins, provides each with a register number as required by law (AL 1978, Chapter 4§ 17) and adds them to his shop inventory. It is in this transit market that the coins go from illegal to "legal" through the acquisition of a register number, a pre-1978 ' provenience, and a ce1tificate of authenticity, all made available by the licensed antiquities dealer. 209 The IAA based on the falsified register number can now issue an expmi license. Even if the IAA inspector pays an unannounced visit to the shop to check the inventory, nothing appears untoward since the coin now possesses a register number that conesponds with the inventory description. The IAA would be able to confiscate the coin under the AL 1978 only if it is unique or was a very rare example or if the IAA can prove the coin came from public land (which it generally cannot do). At this point, the coin has passed into the legitimate sales market for the unsuspecting tourist or collector to buy. 208 No one interviewed would divulge the price paid for the coins. 209 For fut1her discussion on the exchange of register numbers as a common practice among licensed antiquities dealers, see Ilan et al. 1989; Kersel 2005. 164 iii) Destination Market The tourise 10 from New York City (Collector 10) ventures into the licensed antiquities shop in West Jemsalem (Dealer 2) looking for the perfect coin211 (see Figure 6.3) to complement his collection. The Dealer (2) doesn't have a Bar Kokhba tetradrachm Figure 6.3 Bar Kokhba tetradrachm (Image from ). in his inventory but thinks he might be able to get one. A day later (after a visit to Dealer 36) the Dealer (2) offers Dealer 36's coin to the innocent tourist for five times what he paid Dealer 36.212 Forewamed by the concierge at the hotel and in the guidebooks (Prag 2002: 26), the touristis knowledgeable enough to ask for an expmi license, which he receives in due course. When he asks where the coin comes from, he is told that it was pati of an old family collectio'n from the Hebron area. Thus, satisfied that the coin is genuine and that he will not have a problem getting it out of the country, the tourist buys the-coin. At airpmi security the tourist is surprised that the security agents do not question him at all regarding the coin he is taking out of the country. They do not even ask him to produce the export certificate. In my frequent h·ips in and out of Ben Gurion airport I 2 10 The tourist is from the Elite type outlined previously. He/she prefers to shop and stay on the west side of Jerusalem stating that the east (East Jerusalem) and the Old City are far too dangerous. According to the low-end collector the hundreds of dollars that could potentially be saved through a direct transaction with Dealer 36 are inconsequential when consideting his/her safety. 2 11 In this example it was a Bar Kokhba tetradrachm (132-135 CE). These coins are among the first to depict the Temple in Jerusalem (62 years after its destruction), were minted in the first year of the Bar Kokhba War, also known as the Second Revolt See Figure 6.3. 21 2 If the ptice paid by Dealer 36 to the women from Hebron for the coins is US $5, then the tourist is paying US $250 for the same coin, fifty times the original price paid to the village women from Hebron. For further discussion ofprices realised versus the original finder's price see O'Keefe 1997: 19, fn. 35 . 165 always ask the security agents if they receive any training in identifying illegally exported antiquities and in each instance the answer is always no - we are concerned with bombs and drugs not pots or coins. In the mid 1990s the anti-theft unit of the IAA established an antiquities smuggling educational training program for border conh·ol agents (not just at the airpmts, but at all border crossings) (Archaeologists 20 and 21 ). Positive consequences of the training program have included the interdiction of archaeological material without expmtlicenses at the borders and additional visits by the IAA staff to the border points to in order to identify potential contraband. Government budgetary cutbacks resulted in the end of this initiative. The PA DOA and the IAA are both chronically under-funded and under-staffed. Neither has the resources to monitor site looting, dealer inventories or shop registers on a regular basis, nor does either institution have the financial resources to train customs agents and secmity personnel in archaeological resource protection. Political and economic instability in the region, a lack of effective law enforcement in the area and a unique legal market in Israel all create the perfect setting for looting and illegal excavation to occur and to provide the market for the artifacts to be sold. Unfortunately, given the dire situation in the area, the illegal h·ade in antiquities is a low pliority for both sides. The essential goal for both the Israelis and the Palestinians is a situation in which consumers will not purchase objects that have been illegally removed from their original context. In a system with greater oversight would Dealer 36's coin have reached New York City? Perhaps the coin would still be in New York, but ce1tainly not with a legally provided expmtlicense and certificate of authenticity stating that the coin came from an old family collection from the Hebron area. After examining the model of production (Chapter 3), distribution (Chapter 4), and consumption (Chapter 5) and the mechanics of the trade (Chapter 6), what remains is an assessment of the positions of various stakeholders (archaeologists, collectors, dealers, government employees,. museum professionals and a miscellaneous group included in which are architects, lawyers, and conservators) associated with the trade. In Chapter 7 stakeholder responses to the research question posed at the beginning of this study: 166 1) Is there a discernable relationship between demand and the looting of archaeological sites? 2) Should the're be a legal trade in antiquities? are considered in order to add empirical data to the debate on whether the legal trade in antiquities is preventing archaeological site destmction or if in fact, the trade may be encouraging the practice of looting. From evidence provided in this and previous chapters it is clear that the mechanisms cunently in place to combat against the illegal excavation of archaeological sites (the concept of the legal trade as supported by the free-market position) do not appear to be acting as detenents. Chapter 7 examines the opinions and positions of the various actors in the legal antiquity network. 167 CHAPTER SEVEN STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES Acquisition policy ? You must be kidding? We buy whatever we want, whenever we want. (Omit Ilan, quoted in Kersel 2000)213 Despite having a legally sanctioned system of selling antiquities, Israel is the most illegal country in the world when it comes to antiquities. (Dealer 8) This chapter presents an analysis of interviews conducted with the various stakeholders in the antiquities market over the course of three years. This research resulted in an assessment of the efficacy, successes, and failings of the legal market in Israel. Although much of the inf01mation gathered from these interviews was incorporated into the relevant patis of the preceding chapters, here we examine the responses to two of the original questions guiding the PhD: • Is there a discernable relationship between the demand for archaeological material and the looting of archaeological sites? • Should there b~ a legal trade in antiquities? And one question that arose as a result of the research: • Is the IAA proposal to sell sherds a viable alternative to the cunent manifestation of the legal trade in antiquities in Israel? In order to understand better the trade in antiquities and its effects on the archaeological landscape it was imperative that I explore the issues, witness the trade, and speak with those who were directly involved with the production, distribution, and consumption. Archaeologists, collectors (tourists, high-end, and museums), dealers, government employees, museum professionals, and a group of miscellaneous stakeholders (which includes architects, conservators, educators, and lawyers), all ofwhom express a degree of entitlement to the disposition of atiifacts, were consulted tlu·oughout the course of this research. · 2 13 I interviewed Ornit Ilan, archaeologist and former curator of the Rockefeller Museum in January of 2000, as pati of research for my master's thesis We Sell Histmy Issues in the Illicit Trade of Antiquities and Cultural Repatriation at The University of Georgia, 2000. 168 I. REINTRODUCTION TO THE METHODOLOGY The methodology for this research is discussed at length in Chapter 2, but to briefly summarise, this research is both multi-sited and multi-vocal and the interviewee responses reflect these aspects. I tested prototype questionnaires on local (British) stakeholders and professional colleagues. This testing process was not designed to determine the statistical reliability of the questions, but rather to assure that the questions were relevant, that the wording was clear, and that none of the questions were too intrusive or offensive to any of the potential participants. For example, early versions of the interview guide used too many technical tetms, were jargon laden, and some of the questions posed to dealers about income generated from the trade were too personal; as a result some dealers (long-time acquaintances) consulted suggested alternate, more appropriate wording. As mentioned in Chapter 2, some interest groups were far more reticent to discuss the trade than others. The breakdown of the interviewee populations reflects the hesitancy on the pmi of looters. I approached fifteen supposed looters and none agreed to be interviewed for this research (N=O- 0%). Only nine of the twenty- three collectors I contacted met with me or allowed me to witness an interaction in an antiquities shop (N=9._,_ 39%). I achieved a 60% response rate in the museum sphere as six of the ten museum professionals I communicated with agreed to meet with me to discuss the trade and their museum's acquisition policies. Figure 7.1 illustrates the response rate of the ninety-four respondents in my research. Surprisingly, the dealer community was one of the most willing groups to pmiicipate in the study. Thitiy-five of the f01iy-six dealers respondc:d positively to my request for an interview, resulting in a 76% response rate. I naively assumed that they would be the least likely to patiicipate, thinking that as an interest group they had the most to lose- their very livelihoods- by pmiicipating. Unsurprisingly the archaeologist, government employees, miscellaneous stakeholder groups were the most sympathetic to my research and their rates of patiicipation represent their supp01iive positions. 169 Percentage Stakeholder Groups Figure 7.1 Stakeholder Groups Response Rates. Twenty-two of twenty-five (88%) archaeologists; seventeen of nineteen (89%) govemment employees and 100% (all five) of the miscellaneous category responded positively to my requests to meet and all graciously provided infmmation on the legal market for antiquities i_n Israel. It is unfortunate that I was unable to interview any looters and very few tourists214 • I hope to rectify this inadequacy (the tourist aspect) in future post-doctoral research by focusing primarily on the consumption side of the trade. Il. DEFINING THE STAKEHOLDERS The various stakeholders involved with the trade are identified as: 214 See Chapter 2 for a full discussion of the difficulties of interviewing looters and tomists. 170 Production Looters Dealers Government Archaeologists Employees Dealers Distribution Archaeologists Government Laundering of artifacts Collectors Employees Exchange of register numbers Museums Government Employees Collectors Museums Consumption Miscellaneous "Legal artifacts" Archaeologists Figure 7. 2 Stakeholders in the Production - Distribution - Consumption Model in Israel Model. Each stakeholder in the allegedly legal trade in antiquities believes that they have a right to possess, or protect,~ or purvey21 5 archaeological atiifacts from the Near East. The looters may have no perceived cultural affinity to the artifacts in question, but they recognise that middlemen will pay for the material they illegally excavate. Middlemen assert that they are both meeting consumer demand and adding to the economic stability of the PA (where much of the looting takes place) by providing the looters with added income. Dealers in Jemsalem are providing a service by meeting consumer demand. The tourist wants to take home a memento of his visit to the area that will serve as a symbol (Dominguez 1986) of a past visit to a sacred place. Museums and institutions with educational mandates have a vested interest in purchasing atiifacts, increasing their collections for the purposes of study and edification of the general public and researchers. Architects, conservators, educators, and lawyers may play a role in the trade, through valuing, conservation, research, or legislative efforts. The government employees of the IAA and the Jordanian DOA and Palestinian DOA are attempting to protect the past for 2 15 Or an y combination of these three actions. ·171 the future, in order to benefit each of their respective States, and are charged with the responsibility of oversight at each stage of the trade. Additionally, this research will illustrate that archaeologists· (as defined in the following section) can also be involved at all tlu·ee stages of the production - distribution- consumption model of trade. While all of the stakeholders in the licensed trade in antiquities in Israel have competing claims to the area's cultural heritage of Israel and the PA, most would agree that the destruction of archaeological sites is a devastating loss to science and the advancement of human knowledge. Reconciling these claims is a Herculean task, but the essential goal should be a situation in which consumers will not purchase objects that have been illegally removed from their original context. The following is an examination of the stakeholder responses to a series of questions posed. A. Archaeologists For the purposes of this research archaeologists were defined as those people with an interest in the aims and methods of archaeology. The individuals interviewed are employed as professional archaeologists either as academics (working for educational institutions), with private companies,216 or non-governmental, non-profit organisations. The archaeologist cate,gory is comprised of both Israelis and Palestinians, all ofwhom have worked on archaeological projects in the region. Archaeological sites are directly affected by illegal looting and archaeologists often come into contact with looters and middlemen. At times archaeologists act as evaluators of archaeological material working in conce1i with dealers and collectors, the latter who may sponsor archaeological excavations. One interview (Archaeologist 20) revealed a story involving a prominent archaeologist who was "caught" valuing archaeological material in a licensed shop on the west side of Jerusalem, while Archaeologist 20 was monitoring the shop for licensing i1Tegularities. A series of testimonials by noted luminaries like Moshe Dayan, William Dever, and James Strange on the Baidun Arltiquities Shop website (), 2 16 Archaeologists working for govemmental agencies are included in the govemmental employee stakeholder group, although some of the archaeologists in this category were fanner govemment employees. 172 do not provide value for particular pieces, but are intended to attest to the trustworthiness and reliability of Baidun as an antiquities dealer (see figure 7.3)217 . Figure 7.3 D')V11' I ntp•rtii'PI K,"'Q\ •tJD '1'11~ PIJP 1 U 1 n IUIU. tJ .. tOJf t::'lllflil I IUUC\l "'" .. I ). A recent report concerning an incident involving fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls illustrates that archaeologists are sometimes implicated in the consumption end of the trade. In October 2005, Hanan Eshel and an associate were arrested under suspicion of violating the Antiquities Law of 1978 after they purchased what is believed to be a 1,900- year-old biblical scroll from a Bedouin family for US $3,000 (Lefkovits 2005c). Eshel, a noted Dead Sea Scroll sch'olar, averred that he bought the scroll in order to save it for the state of Israel, and that his final intention was to donate the fragments to the Israel Museum (echoing the earlier defensive position of Moshe Dayan), once he had completed his studies and translations (Lefkovits 2005c). After making the purchase218 in 217 It should be noted that all but one (James Strange) of the testimonials pre-date the establishment of the 1978 antiquities law regulating and licensing the sale of antiquities. 218 The funds to purchase the fragments came from David Jesselson, a financial supporter ofEshel's archaeological investigations in the Qumran area (Anonymous 2005). 173 February of 2004 Eshel failed to infmm officials from the IAA 219, claiming that "he did not report the find to the Antiquities Authority because he was afraid that "they [the lAA] would steal the credit," for 'the miraculous find" (Lefkovits 2005c )220 • Regardless of Eshel 's assetiions of altruistic and benevolent motives, here is an example of a reputable archaeologist purchasing an atiifact from Bedouin middlemen (it is unclear whether the Bedouin [three men who were subsequently atTested for allegedly illegally selling antiquities] from whom Eshel purchased the fragments were the original looters) who procured the material illegally. Archaeologists are involved, whether ethically or unethically, in all stages of the trade in antiquities. B. Dealers I interviewed thirty-five of the sixty dealers (many dealers are multiple [N = 21] license holders) licensed by the Israel Antiquities Authority to trade in antiquities221 . The Antiquities Law of 1978 states that in order to qualify as a licensed dealer, the business must exhibit their license prominently and it must not be expired222 (Chapter 4§ 16(b)), they must not knowingly deal in composites or fakes (Chapter 4§21 ), they must keep a register of their inventory (Chapter 4§ 17), and they must report all items of national value to the IAA (Chapter 4§ 19). At the end of December each dealer must submit a request for ~ ' a license and a detailed shop inventory (with images and descriptions of each item, preferably in digital fmmat) to the IAA anti-theft unit along with an associated fee. 219 In violation of Chapter 2§3 of the 1978 Antiquities Law,' which states: "A person who discovers or finds an antiquity otherwise than in an excavation under a license pursuant to this Law shall notify the Director within fifteen days of the discovery or find ." 220 In an announcement in the daily Israeli newspaper Haaretz the Archaeological Council of Israel (advisory body to the IAA) was ctitical of the actions of the IAA against Eshel (Bm·kat 2005). The Archaeological Council stated that "We are convinced that Eshel rescued the scroll fragments , which otherwise could have been lost," the protest supported Eshel's actions even though they are in direct contravention oflsraeli law (Antiquities Law Chapter 2§3). Unmentioned in any of the reports consulted was whether the original find spot of the fragments was in Israel or the P A, adding another dimension to this highly controversial case. While at the Ametican Schools of Oriental Research annual meetings in Philadelphia (November 2005) just after this incident was reported, I had the opportunity to " re-interview" some of my respondents regarding this case. I was surptised to lea m that many of those archaeologists (7, 14, and 15) adamantly opposed to the trade in antiquities felt that Eshel had done the right thing by purchasing the fragments to save them from their supposedly assured destruction. 22 1 A person may only deal in antiquities if he is in possession of a license for this activity from the Director and in accordance with the conditions of the license, which shall be presctibed by regulations (Antiquities Law Chapter 4§ 15). 222 On visits to four separate licensed antiquities shops in the Old City each displayed an expired IAA license. When I quetied the shop owners each had a similar reply: Th e !AA never check and no one ever asks, I have th e new license here somewhere but I just haven't put it up yet (Dealers 3, 4, 21, and 23). 174 According to many of the dealers (1, 5, 6, 27, 30, and 34), archaeologists (4, 7, 15, 20, and 21 ), and government employees ( 10, 16, and 18) interviewed, the granting and renewing of licenses is often pro forma as almost one hundred requests reach the IAA at the end of the year ,far too many [antiquities shops] for one or two people to review and check inventories (Archaeologist 20). Often dealers caught up in an IAA backlog reopen their shops in the New Year without a valid license. If the IAA then tries to fine or prosecute them the dealer says that it is the fault of the anti-theft unit and the license renewal process (Archaeologist 21). Many of those who apply are from long-established dealing families and are related to other dealers in the region (e.g., the cousin of one Old City dealer (6) has an establishment in west Jemsalem (Dealer 29)). When dealers were questioned about the licensing process223 57% (N = 20) stated there were no regular checks of their store inventories by the IAA. Current and f01mer employees of the anti-theft unit who admit to a lack of supervision on a routine basis confitmed this -there just isn 't enough staff to monitor every shop in the Old City (Government Employee 5). One dealer (35) stated that only if I sell something high-end or very expensive do the inspectors from the !AA pay me a little visit. And even then they only glance at the register and what I have in the shop. When the inspectors do make the occasional visit into the Old City they are often confronted by dealers with a variety of excuses regarding their lack of up-to-date registries- ignorance, old age (senility setting in), and/or diminished mental capacity (Archaeologist 22, Government Employees 10 and 18). 224 It is somewhat easier to understand why the practice of the exchange of register numbers (outlined in Chapter 6) can take place if there is little oversight by the body tasked with the management of the legal trade, and when there is oversight there is obfuscation at every step. Of those dealers licensed by the IAA, 57% (N = 20) are Palestinian, many of whose shops are located in the Old City of Jemsalem (see Map 4.3, Chapter 4). Forty percent is comprised of (N = 14) Israelis whose shops are located in the Jewish Quarter of 223 See the sample question in Appendix 3 Dealer Interview Guide- Section 3 Standards. 224 These responses are reminiscent of earlier responses documented in the British Mandate archival material. See Chapter 4 for further discussion and conespondence, which parallels incidents in the current trade in Israel. ·175 the Old City, the West side of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Jaffa, and Haifa (see Map 7. 1). For purposes of prototype testing one dealer was interviewed outside of Israel. SYRIA Medtterranean Map 7.1 C. Collectors ea <, \ \ ' . .. \ ·. ~ G Y PT . ~ :. ,· .... ''"' .,.... } • ·,:- • I, ·.-· . \ .· \ /· .•. · .. \ \ 36. JORDAN Locations (yellow stars) of antiquities shops throughout Israel (Image from ). 32. Collectors interviewed for this study included tourists (local and foreigners), those interested in acquiring high-end material, and those collecting for museums and/or educational institutions. Collectors were either chosen by default (I was in the shop interviewing the dealer when they arrived- Collectors 2, 7, and 8) or through refenal by one of the dealers (Collectors 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9). Of the nine collectors interviewed for this study, all purchased Near Eastern artifacts. Three of the collectors were tourists who were in search of artifacts that would be reminiscent of their visit to the Holy Land. At times the collectors appear to be a discerning group, buying only from reputable dealers (recommended by friends, locals, and/or their hotel concierge) and only from those 176 dealers who provide a ce1tificate of authenticity (see the description of collector 2 in Chapter 4). In one instance when I asked a museum professional (2) about acquiring material from dealers, they stated I only buy from reputable dealers not those who have been involved with past scandals as in the case of Dealer 9. I have a colleague who routinely makes purchases for a study collection for his institution from Dealer 29 who is far more reputable [than Dealer 9].225 Some of the collectors interviewed (Collectors 1, 4, and 5) bought from the websites of licensed dealers, from the actual shop, or from auction houses. An interesting case study included in this dissetiation is collector 6, which is actually an entire family, all of whom collect. The parents were focused on making sure that their children acquire some souvenirs (in the fmm of coins, oil lamps, or pots) of their visit to the Holy Land. The parents collected for purposes of adding to an educational study collection in order that those not fortunate enough to travel to the Holy Land may experience the wonder of its material culture in the pieces we take with us to the States. They made enquires about reputable dealers but did not always follow the advice they were given, instead prefening to patronise shops that appeared more authentic. 226 D. Govemment Employees Initially government employees whose jobs entail cultural heritage protection were contacted for the purposes of this research. Those involved with anti-theft initiatives with the Israel Antiquities Authority, and the Depa1tments of Antiquities in Jordan227 and the PA then recommended colleagues who had encountered looting at archaeological sites or who had dealt with issues sunounding the sale of antiquities. A cross-section of employees - ranging from those in administration to field archaeologists - was targeted in order to broaden the scope of this inquiry. Of the govemment employees interviewed 88% (N = 15) had a higher degree in archaeology (N = 9 of those with a PhD) and on 225 A little known fact is thai Dealer 29 is the nephew of Dealer 9. Museum professional 2 and the colleague had no idea that their reputable dealer was related to Dealer 9 of past antiquities scandals . 226 For a discussion of this collector buying a composite from an "authentic" dealer see Chapter 4. 227 Only three of the govemment employees interviewed for this research are from Jordan. In an attempt to tJiangulate information, these individuals were selected in order to ve1ify the accuracy of statements regarding the movement of archaeological material from Jordan into Israel for sale in the legal market. The Jordanian aspect of this research is in its infancy and is something I hope to research in future studies. "177 average had worked with their relevant organisation for over ten years. The majority of government employees interviewed work for the IAA. Figme 7.4 depicts the organisational structure of the. agency (the IAA) tasked with protecting the country's cultural heritage and enforcing its antiquities legislation. i) IAA Robbery Prevention Unie28 Many of the interviews with government employees focused on the robbery prevention unit, either directly (meeting with unit employees) or indirectly (the effects of the unit's work on respondent's work within the IAA). Established by Uzi Dahari and Gideon A vni in the mid 1980s as a response to the looting of and thefts from archaeological sites and museums the unit is described as: "[A]t the forefront of the struggle against looting and looters, middlemen, and unauthorized dealers. This unit that is composed in its entirety of IDF Israel Defence Forces] reserves officers in field units, is active throughout the year, and employs unique methods and techniques in its work. Its members are empowered to anest looters, to conduct investigations, and implement searches. The members ofthe Unit are aided in the execution of their tasks by collaborators, inf01mation sources, and governmental law enforcement bodies. Every year hundreds of individuals suspected of antiquities looting crimes are apprehended; most are tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison terms or are fined ." ' (From the IAA website available from: ) When asked about the efficacy of the unit in the task of protecting the archaeological sites on the region, one respondent replied the theft unit is like using an aspirin to treat cancer. It may provide immediate relief (and even that is doubtful) but not long term sustainable protection (Govemment Employee 2). Most of those familiar with the work of the unit agreed that it is impossible for them to meet their mandate due to chronic understaffing and lack of financial resources. Some (including some f01mer unit employees) also noted that the pa1iicular type of personality working for the unit may also act as an impediment to cultural heritage protection. The unit is filled with a lot of "cowboys" who like guns and s·wagger around, armed "protecting" the land against the starving Palestinian looters (Archaeologist 7).It takes a special type of person who 228 This division of the IAA is also commonly refened to as the anti-theft unit. 178 wants to crawl around in the bushes with night vision goggles to catch people (Archaeologist 21 ). The archaeologist who works for the !AA anti-theft unit is the epitome of Israeli "macho".: tracking people, catching them in the act, chasing them down, and making arrests (Archaeologist 15). These characterisations of the robbery prevention unit employee were cotToborated in the 2003 History Channel documentary entitled "History Matters: Tomb Raiders: Robbing the Dead" in which current employees Amir Ganor (director ofthe unit) and Ron Kehati (assistant director) both canying guns, were depicted chasing a looter through the brush using night visions goggles, eventually catching the perpetrator and then placing him in handcuffs (History Channel 2003). Further confirmation of this type of behaviour is found in the detailed description of an IAA robbery prevention unit sting in Judean Hills: "We pursued. A cat-and-mouse game continued until 3:30am, when we comered the looters in an underground cul-de-sac. Within an hour the pillagers were consigned to the nearest police station." (Ilan, Dahari, and A vni 1989: 38) In its heyday ( 1990-1996) the robbery prevention unit instituted cooperative programs with the Palestinian Depmtment of Antiquities, the customs and border control agencies, and with the§ecurity personnel at Ben Gurion Airpmt. Oversight and protection of the archaeological record was at its peak during this period, but it was also a period of some scandal as unit employees were accused of abuse of power and over zealousness in their mission (Archaeologists 7, 15, 20). These types of charges are once again evident in the pages of BAR and the national newspapers in relation to the indictments and ongoing trial sunounding forgeries and in the case ofHanan Eshel (see Anonymous 2005, Lefkovits 2005c, Shanks 2005a). 179 IAA Management I I I I I I I Publications IAA Regional I Excavations & IT Department National Library Offices Surveys Treasures I I I I I I I I I I I Central Northem Jerusalem Southern Marine Archaeology Artifacts Anti-theft Unit IAA lntemet Archives Unit Websites Conservation ~ Figure 7.4 IAA Organisational Chart 180 E. Miscellaneous The miscellaneous group encompasses all those interviewed who do not fall neatly into any of the other stakeholder categories. This group includes architects, conservators, educators, and lawyers, all of whom have some contact with archaeology and the trade in antiquities. F. Museum Professionals In the winter of 1999, Omit Ilan229 , an archaeologist and former curator of the Rockefeller Museum (formerly The Palestine Archaeological Museum), in response to my question about an acquisition policy for the museum, laughed and said Acquisition policy, you must be kidding? We buy whatever we want, whenever we -vvant. We don't really have much money for acquisitions but we don't ask any questions when it comes to acquiring artifacts, either on the market or through bequests. This statement was fundamental to the initiation of this inquiry into the movement of archaeological material. I wanted to be sure that Omit (who had a great sense of humour) was not just pulling my leg with her previous statement and I wanted to determine how the museum community fit into the trade in antiquities. Museum professionals from both private and public institutions were consulted, although they proved to be an elusive bunch as I only interviewed six for this research. After a year of fieldwork I returned to Cambridge laden with interview transcripts, field notes, and musings on my meetings with the various stakeholders. I began my analysis by rereading the primary material and in doing this I was reminded of the various contexts of construction in which the many interviews took place. I soon realised that parts of what I recorded and compiled was somewhat irrelevant and nai"ve.230 After culling the data I collected, I reread the relevant material very closely in order to recapture some of the emotional flavour and interpersonal situations that produced the notes (Bogdan and Taylor 1975). The emphasis in this stage is on thinking about what is being said and the meaning and intent of each response, what Strauss ( 1987) refers to as 229 I am indebted to Ornit Ilan for her willingness to share information on the collecting practices of the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem. 230 I was assured by vmious social anthropologists that this was nmmal. 181 open coding231 • Once all of the stakeholder responses had been open coded I examined my annotations for broad themes, patterns, and categories - a process known as axial coding. It was during tllis p.rocess that three recuning themes in stakeholder responses became evident: issues sunounding where archaeological material came from, what people wanted, and who purchased the attifacts and the looting of archaeological sites; the efficacy of the legal market (positive, negative, and undecided positions); and discussions sunounding the IAA proposal to sell sherds. While the first two themes were pa11 of my original research design, responses on the IAA proposal added an interesting element to my analysis. Each of the stakeholders approached as pmt of tills research expressed an interest in the outcomes for a variety of reasons. All (even the dealer and collecting communities) agreed that the destmction of archaeological sites as a result of looting was a devastating loss to our collective knowledge, but the root cause of looting was (and still is) a hotly debated point, as was the relationship between demand and looting. The following sections outline the stakeholder responses to questions sunounding archaeological site destmction, demand, elements of a legal trade, and alternative solutions. Ill. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES A. Is there a Link between Demand and the Looting of Archaeological Sites? When asked about the relationship between the demand for mtifacts and the looting of archaeological sites and thefts from museums and private collections over 70% (N = 66) of the total respondents (N = 94) declared that there was a causal relationship: the demand for archaeological mtifacts in the marketplace results in the looting of archaeological sites. The following table illustrates the stakeholder positions on the question of whether there is a link between demand and looting. 23 1 See Chapter 2 footnote 73 for a discussion of ethnographic coding. One of the dangers ofthe open coding stage that social scientists are wamed to avoid is the imposition of outside (etic) categmies into the coding. Instead the responses should "speak" for themselves from an insider's ( emic) perspective. Interviewers should constantly ask themselves questions of this nature: "to what extent is this, a participant's world view or some composite of my representation of his/her world view?" (Agar 1980:181 ). As someone new to the field of ethnography I constantly reminded myself of these dangers and often consulted with social anthropologists to verify my coding techniques and subsequent analyses. Stakeholder Group YES NO Total% Archaeologists 95% 5% 100 Collectors 33% 67% 100 Dealers 54% 46% 100 Gove1nment Employees 100% 0% 100 Miscellaneous 60% 40% 100 Museum Professionals 50% 50% 100 Figure 7.5 Stakeholder Group Positions on the Link between Demand and Looting. Four of the six stakeholder (archaeologists, government employees, miscellaneous, and dealers) responses suppmted the position that a legal market does not act as a deterrent to looting, and some asse1ted that the market may actually stimulate looting. The museum professional group is evenly divided over the issue. The only set of stakeholders who suppmted the hypothesis that a legal trade will diminish looting232 was the collecting community, which is an interesting comment on their ability to avoid discussions involving the origins of the a1tifacts they are considering for purchase. As stated previously, over 70% of the respondents believe that there is a direct relationship between the demand for archaeological objects and the looting of archaeological sites. " All but one of the archaeologists (Archaeologist 14) had experienced some type of looting at a site with which they were associated and they all held that the demand for archaeological material as one of the reasons why looting occurs. This group felt that demand for archaeological material in the marketplace has a direct impact on the looting of archaeological sites and some of those interviewed for this research provided examples, which illustrated the causal relationship: We left some pots in situ because it was the end of our work day and even though we covered them up and made sure there was no trace of them, the next morning they were gone. Some time later these same pots (or ones very similar, I'm not sure) were in the shop windovv of a very reputable dealer (Archaeologist 8). All of the gove1nmental employees (1 00%; N= 17) (regardless of the gove1nment: Israeli, Jordanian, or Palestinian) agreed that there was a link between demand and 232 The otiginal assetiions of the free-market proponents . 183 looting. Many of them could document specific instances where material, looted from a pmticular archaeological site, then appeared in a shop inventor/33 . Both archaeologists and govemment employees had, on occasion, come into contact with middlemen or even looters who confirmed that much of their illegal excavation of sites was demand driven: Israeli dealers tell Palestinians where and what to dig (Govemment Employee 5). Both of these stakeholder groups (archaeologists and government employees) also admitted that there might be other possible reasons why looters illegally excavate sites, but that consumer demand was the greatest driving force. The closure of the borders between Israel and the P A as the result of the 2001 Al-Aqsa Intifada234, and the construction of the banier wall along the border were often cited as reasons why looting occurs (Archaeologists 6, 11, 15, 19, and 25; Govemment Employees 2, 9, 15, and 18). Of the other stakeholder categories opinions were divided on the relationship between demand and the looting of archaeological sites. There must be a constant supply to meet demand, therefore a licensed dealer scheme would serve to encourage looting rather than working towards its elimination (Miscellaneous 4) stated one respondent. Some asse11 that the cunent inventory (pre-1978 material) in the shops and material available through deaccessioning, chance finds, and the selling off of collections was enough to satisfy consumer demand (Dealers 5, 27, and 32). There is enough material out there to satisfY everyone - tourist and high-end collector alike, there is no need for people to loot archaeological sites. People loot because it's an interesting way to spend an afternoon, not because someone in New York City wants an oil lamp with a menorah on it (Dealer 15). Although 46% (N = 16) of the dealers interviewed felt that there was no relationship between looting and the sale of archaeological material, 54% fully admitted to a connection between the two spheres of the economy. 233 The exchange of register numbers phenomenon discussed in Chapter 6 makes it viitually impossible to prove that recently looted material comes from a specific site. It is very difficult to pinpoint the exact miginal context ofmate1ial without fmther scientific analysis, which is expensive and not usually available to the ant-theft unit of the IAA and the Departments of Antiquities in Jordan and the P A. 234 In 200 I , antiquities authorities on both sides of the border repmted a rise of300% in incidents of tomb robbing (Ephron 2001). If a tourist comes into my store and wants a figurine from the Iron II period and I don 't have one I ask some of my fellotv shop mvners. If they don't have one I call my "middleman" in Hebron to ask if he as any in his storeroom. Within days I have one in my shop, I don't ask too many questions, but I do ask for the location of the find because lots of tourists want to !mow the name of the archaeological site that the figurine came from (Dealer 19). I get the catalogues from the major auction houses and I check eBay and I monitor what is selling. Right now inscriptions are hot, anything with an inscription is a good seller but I don't have many pieces. I am always on the lookout for inscriptions; I make sure that my contacts in the territories know that I can easily move inscriptions (Dealer 27). In these and other interviews, dealers relate various scenarios that confirm a tie between the demand for a particular object and its appearance in their inventory. These responses raise the question that if in a truly legal (not the quasi-legal manifestation that exists cunently) market without an Iron II figurine but with a consumer demanding such an item, would looting still occur to meet the demand? In another example illustrating the association of demand and looting, volunteers from a large, well-known excavation in Israel were routinely taken to a particular antiquities shop (Dealer 6) during their day off by one of their supervisors at the excavation as a form o/(mtertainment and as a place to get a souvenir of their experience on an archaeological dig (Archaeologist 1). Unsuspecting volunteers were encouraged to purchase mementoes of their visit (an artifact from site X) by their supervisor from site X. They were directed to the patticular shop (Dealer 6) and a reputable dealer (promoted by their supervisor), and at no time were they told to ask for an expmt permit or certificate of authenticity, although they were told that they were being given a special rate due to their association with Site X and the supervisor (Dealer 6 and Archaeologist 1 )235 . If the dealer (Dealer 6) did not have any examples of artifacts from the site they were working at then he could "procure" them by the time the volunteers had another day 235 This situation was confilmed in separate interviews with the dealer, a volunteer (now an archaeologist) and the supe1visor. The volunteer, mortified by their earlier behaviour, admitted to buying a couple of oil lamps in the initial visit to the shop. Upon later reflection what was most perplexing to the volunteer was the pmiicipation of the supervisor/archaeologist. Questions arose like: was the supervisor receiving some so1i of financial payback and were they supplying some of the mateiial from the excavation to the dealer to sell to the volunteers? These questions occuned to me dllling my interview with the supervisor/archaeologist but they declined to comment (Archaeologist 18). off. If the volunteers anived at the shop unaccompanied they had only to mention the name of the supervisor and they were led into a back room of the shop with rarer finds, and not just the regular tourist junk (Archaeologist 1 ). Examples like this, the case study of the Bar Kokhba coin (Chapter 6), and testimony from archaeologists, dealers, and govemment employees clearly illustrate the link between consumer demand for archaeological material and the looting of archaeological sites. The qualitative data presented as a result of this research indicate thatthe legal market for antiquities in Israel does not diminish looting and may in fact contribute to greater mining of archaeological sites for saleable items. Interviewer responses indicate that the legal market is flawed, not entirely legal, and may contribute to looting but still there was some sentiment that a trade in antiquities should be permitted. As a result my next series of questions smTounding the legal market included whether or not a trade should exist and if it should continue in what manifestation would be most beneficial to the greatest number of people. The resulting responses were often quite surprising. B. Should A Legal Trade in Antiquities Exist? Figure 7.6 depicts t he percentage breakdown of the stakeholder response to the question of whether a legal trade in Israel should exist. The following section discusses the various responses, rationales, and opinions of the stakeholder groups, all ofwhom express a degree of entitlement in the decision-making processes conceming the cultural heritage of region. Stakeholder Group YES NO MAYBE Archaeologists 40% 45% 15% Collectors 100% 0% 0% Dealers 100% 0% 0% Govemment Employees 29% 64% 7% Miscellaneous 60% 40% 0% Museum Professionals 67% 33% 0% Figure 7.6 Stakeholder Response- Should A Legal Trade in Antiquities Exist? 186 ' Total% 100 100 100 100 100 100 i) Archaeologists Opinion on whether a legal trade in antiquities should exist was divided: of the twenty-two archaeologists fnterviewed for this research, 45% (N = 1 0) opposed the licensed sale, 40% (N = 9) suppmied a trade and 15% (N = 3) were undecided but leaned towards a trade. For many the question of whether or not to sell atiifacts had no clear yes or no answer. While some were not against the average tourist from Montana buying a Herodian oil lamp or two (Archaeologist 9), they were against the sale of material that was considered of national impmiance or one of a kind examples (Archaeologist 2)236 . Questions arose about denying someone their right to a livelihood- expressed in te1ms of aji-ee enterprise issue (Archaeologists 11 and 21 ). By denying someone the right to trade in antiquities you were infringing upon their civillibetiies and their right to free enterprise. Countering this argument, one archaeologist (15) asserted that the dealers would find another way to make a living if they weren't selling antiquities - ethnographic material or tourist replicas. In discussions most of the respondents divided the trade into two types: 1. High- end collecting, which they associated with people like Borowski, Dayan, Moussaieff, and White and Levy- those who were in search one-of-a-kind pieces of extraordinary value; and 2. Low-end tourist purchases happy to buy duplicates (Archaeologist 7, 9, 11, 14, and 17). Most respondents felt that it was the high-end aspect of the h·ade that was the cause of archaeological looting and those types of miifacts sought after by the high-end collector should not be allowed to leave the country. Some (Archaeologists 2, 11 and 18) proffered the "art as ambassador" position, arguing that by allowing people to collect increases our general lawwledge, which may in turn lead to greater financial support of archaeological endeavours in this country (Archaeologist 1 ). Issues of accessibility and curation were of paramount importance to one respondent (Archaeologist 2). Allowing wealthy individuals to collect material was to ensure the future of the artifact as a cherished item237 (Archaeologists 2). The end [the curated archaeological item] is worth the means [the licensed trade] stated another archaeologist (11). Almost all ofthose 236 Although many of the same respondents were not against the buying of artefacts of national impot1ance to keep the material in the country, as in the case of Hanan Eshel and the Dead Sea Scroll. 237 Reaffitming the position espoused by many high-end collectors , that they are caretakers of the world's cultural heritage. 187 archaeologists interviewed were against this type of trade but many suppmied the sale of duplicate iuiifacts and "redundant" material (Archaeologists 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 16, and 18) to tourists. All of those (N = 9) who support a legal h·ade emphasised that the trade had to be better controlled and under more oversight than its current manifestation in Israel. Many felt that the existing licensed trade of antiquities in Israel lacks oversight and is ineffective in filtering out looted material from legitimately available miifacts (those from pre-1978 collections). For many the 1978 Antiquities Law was inherently flawed as it makes a provision for a licensed sale but makes no provisions (financial or otherwise) for management of the trade. Currently a license is not required to sell Roman glass in the fmm of jewellery or coins. A more consistent policy for what constitutes an archaeological resource and what is covered under the license should be a priority for the !AA (Archaeologist 4). All of the respondents who supported a legal trade felt that the only entity that should be selling miifacts is the IAA. What qualifies someone like Stern [an Israeli jeweller] to sell artifacts? Are any of these dealers knowledgeable about archaeology, can the naive buyer trust any of them? (Archaeologist 13)238 . Many supported the position that the profits from the government sale of artifacts should be channelled back into the coffers of the IAA for further support of archaeological excavation, publications, and conservation of archaeological sites. Those archaeologists interviewed who were adamantly opposed to the trade cited the inetrievable loss of knowledge as the key reason why the trade should not be sanctioned. The sale of archaeological material in this count1y is a travesty (Archaeologist 14). Most agreed that the current antiquities legislation in Israel is inconsistent and was promulgated under the influence of some very powerful politician/collectors (fmmer army general and Knesset member Moshe Dayan and former mayor of Jerusalem Teddy Kollek, to name but two)who were extremely interested in perpetuating the h·ade for their own personal collecting purposes.239 Among the archaeologists, opinion on a licensed trade was divided but those who suppmied the h·ade were of one voice- greater control of material and the govemment as the sole licensee. 238 Of the thi1iy-five dealers inte1viewed three had higher degrees in Near Eastem A1i and Archaeology. The rest had knowledge, which they claimed was learned on the job . The cunent licensing scheme has no professional educational requirement of licensees. 239 See Chapters 4 and 5 for further discussion on the political and social influence of Teddy Kollek and Moshe Dayan. ·188 ii) Collectors All of the collectors (N = 9) interviewed agree with a licensed trade in antiquities and assert their right to buy archaeological material from this region. The collectors all stated that they would pass along their collections to other family members or public institutions in order to make the material accessible to a greater number of people. To them their acquisitions are the actions of the benevolent not the miserly and they should be allowed to continue. A similar argument is invoked by Shelby White in her defence of the collecting practices of she and her husband (White 1998). 240 When I asked whether it would make a difference if the seller was the IAA or licensed dealers in the Old City, most declared it would make little or no difference as long as the seller could provide a ce1tificate of authenticity and an expmi license. Collector 3 prefened to do business with his particular dealer, with whom he has had a long relationship, and in whom he has great confidence. I would prefer to visit Dealer 35; he 's smart and funny and always knows exactly what I am looking for to complete my collection. Of the tourists interviewed (N = 3 or 33%) ambience, authenticity and ease of access were key critelia in their purchasing experience. Would the !AA have a shop in the Old City or in Jaffa? I don't want to have to visit some nameless concrete government building to buy my archaeological artifacts. I want it to be a natural experience as part of my tours of Jerusalem's streets (quote from Collectors 2, echoed in the sentiments of collectors 7, and 8). None of the collectors interviewed expressed distaste of buying duplicate and redundant material. Visiting the cramped, over crowded shop with the magic door that slides aside to reveal a host of other atiifacts for sale is the "authentic" collecting encounter most collectors were interesting in experiencing. Whether the IAA in the role of purveyors of archaeological mate1ial would provide such an encounter is another question for future discussion. iii) Dealers 240 See Chapter 5 footnote 172 for further discussion of Shelby White and Leon Levy and the concept of the Good Collector. 189 Unsurprisingly 100% (N = 35) of the dealers interviewed for this study agree with a legal trade in antiquities, to do othetwise would negate their livelihood. Most stated that they were merely providing a service and were quick to point out that they were only supplying the demand, not creating it. If people want to buy a reminder of their trip to the Holy Land, then we should supply it to them and in turn we can make a living (Dealer 13). If I didn't sell this material people ·would still loot archaeological sites and someone else would come along get a license and sell the stuff to a tourist from America (Dealer 29). When asked to comment on the permitting process, dealers were unanimous (regardless of their ethnic background) in their disdain for the cunent licensing scheme. They [the IAA] make us jump through a bunch of hoops (the register, the inventmy, and the shop inspections) because they want to show us who is boss and who has the gun, and who is in charge (Dealer 20). They [the IAA] have it in for me and make my life a living hell, always coming in when I have clients and asking to see the register, denying me export permits, all for no reason (Dealer 14)241 • Everyone knows that the register system is just a system of falsified records. By everyone I mean all of the dealers and the anti- theft unit. (Dealer 8 but conoborated by Dealers 21, 27, and 30-32). I have a license in my window dated to 2001 [it was 2003 when I visited] no one has ever said anything and I am not changing it until the inspector makes me (Dealer 28). The dealers, echoing the earlier statement of Archaeologist 21, outline the disjunction between the renewal of the license, the backlog of processing at the IAA, and the opening of antiquities shops in the Old City. I try to capitalise on the Christmas rush of tourists. If I have to shut because the !AA hasn't renewed my license I can lose valuable revenue. I stay open, even if I haven't received the official license, I know it will be months before an inspector checks and by that time I will have my license. It works every year and I know that eve1yone does it. If eve1yone else were open why would you close?242 (Dealer 24). The consensus amongst dealers is that the licensing system is both strict and lax at the same time. Although the IAA does not consistently make site inspections, when IAA representatives do, the 241 A dealer located outside of Jerusalem's Old City. I received the distinct impression that those dealers who were located outside of the Old City were visited more frequently (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of the perceived difficulties involved with visiting the Old City). · 242 This statement was accompanied by the dealer giving me a look of lunacy. Anyone who does not open because they do not have a new license is a lunatic. 190 inspections verge on harassment, where people are expected to produce records for sales for the previous ten years (Dealer 14). The dealer community maintains that it should be allowed to tr·ade in antiquities, but there seems to be a consensus that the existing IAA sanctioned market is flawed and filled with illegal elements, making it easy to sidestep the cunent antiquities laws. iv) Govemment Employee Of the seventeen govemment employees interviewed for this study 65% (N = 11) are against a legal tr·ade in antiquities, 30% (N = 5) support a trade, and 5% (N = 1) are undecided. Similar to those in the archaeological community who supp011 a trade, the govemment employees who supp011 a trade also advocate for a government controlled trade with greater oversight and a mandate to sell mainly to educational (museums and academic) institutions. When asked to elaborate on the concept of a "controlled trade" managed by the IAA, the govemment employees (2, 5, 6, 13, and 18) supporting this initiative indicated that control was warranted not only in sales, but in border and customs inspections. This would require intra- and inter-agency cooperation, in addition to regional programs with the neighbouring countries, in order to stop the unfettered movement of material across the sometimes-porous borders. The underlying assumption of this position is that banning the trade is irrelevant because it is the nature of man to collect and he will always do so using whichever means necessmy (Govemment Employee 6) . As a result, some of the govemment employees believe that a govemment sponsored sale of redundant material is the only way to satisfy consumer demand, while at the same time monitoring exactly what is being exported from the region243 . Each respondent stressed that nothing of national significance should be allowed to leave the country or be sold to private individuals. These govemment employees advocated only the sale of duplicate, redundant (the determination of which was to be made by the archaeological council) material. When queried about future scientific studies on the duplicate matehal interviewees replied we would keep a register of where the material was being sold. For example if the Oriental Institute in Chicago 243 See Chapter 5 for further discussion of the psychological and sociological factors associated with collecting. 191 bought forty pots from Megiddo we would !mow exactly where they were located if a researcher needed access in the future. This is why a single entity [the IAA] should be charged with the disposition oj material in order to keep track of it for future purposes (Government Employee 16). Despite the fact that all (1 00%) of the government employees interviewed acknowledged a link between the looting of archaeological sites and the demand for artifacts in the marketplace, some still felt that a state sponsored sale of material was a good idea. All of those who supp01i a state sale of antiquities stated that their primary reason is that of solving the storage crisis cunently facing the IAA (Government Employees 2, 5, 6, 13, and 18). We have thousands of duplicate pots from site X, now they are just sitting in the !AA storage gathering dust. Why shouldn 't we sell these to generate some much-needed money to fimd excavations and fitture publications? (Government Employee 6). For most who supp01i the sale of artifacts it is viewed as a moneymaking venture, which will free up valuable storage space as an added bonus. This argument is countered by critics who state that selling off the material in the coffers of the IAA would supply the market for less than a single year (Ilan, Dahari, and Avni 1989: 41 )244 . There is a finite supply of archaeological material from both storerooms and sites, and the state sponsored sale of material is not a panacea for the· budgetary sh01ifalls and storage crises facing the government of Israel. The support for a legal market (albeit a state sponsored sale) in archaeological material is interesting keeping in mind that all of the government respondents admitted to the causal link between demand and the looting of archaeological sites. When questioned about this dichotomy in the position of the government employees, those supp01iing the trade stated that looting was fitelled by the desire for high-end items, not the duplicate or redundant material to be sold off by the !AA. The only way to combat looting is to make high-end collectors feel embarrassed about owning artifacts, prohibiting the tourist from purchasing an oil lamp is not going to stop looting (Government Employee 2). In their expose ofthe plundering of archaeological sites in Israel, authors Ilan, Dahmi, and Avni (1989: 41) state that "recent surveys by our Anti-Plunder Task Force show that the vast 244 To which the suppmiers could reply - so what? The ultimate goal of creating more space for the storage of future archaeological finds has been met. 192 majority of purchases from antiquities dealers are made by individual tourists who buy a single pottery lamp or jug, a glass vessel, or coin. These artifacts represent the overwhelming majority of artifacts plundered from archaeological sites." Given the preceding evidence looting would most likely persist to supply the low-end tourist market as storeroom supplies dwindled and demand continued. The 65% opposing the trade indicated that the 1978 Antiquities Law, which vests the ownership of all cultural material in the State, creates an ethical dilemma for a state sponsored sale of archaeological material. It is unethical for the state to be in the business of selling material that in essence belongs to the people, not to mention issues surrounding the procurement of material from the P A, which is not covered under the Israeli legislation. Some found this position unconvincing, asserting that states currently sell material all of the time on behalf of their citizens in the form of oil, timber, or natural resources (Government Employees 3 and 16). In countering the right to commercial enterprise position of the proponents of the trade, opponents invoke the basic legal principle of the greater good. The antiquities trade is financially beneficial to a few at the expense of the greater good - the public interest in cultural heritage. The antiquities trade consistently deprives the public at large of a greater understanding of their history (Govemment Employee 4). Very few within the govemment are sympathetic to the loss of livelihood argument of the dealers, most believe that dealers will always find something to do (Government Employee 16). Dealers could turn to the sale of replicas and the promotion of tourist products in order to earn a living (Govemment Employee 15). While some government employees (1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9-12, 14, and 16) are against a trade they all suppmt the exchange of cultural material tlu·ough long-term or even pe1manent loan programs with educational institutions. I am not against the movement of material outside of Israel if it ends up in a public institution or in an academic study collection. That way the global community experiences the gl01y of this region and material that would otherwise sit in a dusty machsan245 is seen by the general public or used by students (Govemment Employee 16). 245 Hebrew for storage area. 193 Like the archaeologist stakeholder group, opinion on this issue is divided among government employees. There is a similar split between respondents in the miscellaneous category of stakeholders. v) Miscellaneous (architects, conservators, educators, and lawyers) Opinion over whether or not a legal trade should exist is divided in the miscellaneous group: 60 % (N = 3) are in favour of a licensed trade, while 40 % (N = 2) are against a trade. Similar arguments as those presented in the previously discussed stakeholder groups prevail for both the pro-trade and anti-tr·ade positions. The pro-trade proponents qualify their position by assetting that the trade must be managed and overseen by the IAA; they do not advocate for a free trade in archaeological material. All of the respondents in this category would prefer to see long-te1m and petmanent loans of material to educational institutions rather than a commercial transaction. The !AA should encourage the loan of artifacts to all those institutions that want them. The loan of artifacts can engender a lot of good will in the international community (Miscellaneous 4). All agreed that nothing of national impmtance should be allowed to leave the region. vi) Museum Professionals Of the six museum professionals (representatives from both private and public institutions) consulted 66% (N = 4) supported the legal trade of antiquities, 34% (N = 2) were against any fmm of trade, preferring that museums acquire their material from licensed excavations, deaccessioned collections, or donations. The questions surrounding donated material (Where did it originate? Do we have any infmmation about provenience?) were assiduously avoided by all but one (6) of the museum professional respondents246 . Due to budgetary constraints museums are reliant on private donations and part of the museum professional 's job is to actively cultivate relationships with 246 During the interview Museum professional 6 was happy to answer any and all questions regarding donations. After I sent the transc1ipt of our meeting for their comments and approval, they decided that some of what they said should remain confidential and I am therefore unable to use any of the information about pmticular individuals and donations. 194 potential donors. If that means looking the other way when there are questions of provenience then I do (Museum professional4). In order to ameliorate issues sunounding the acceptance of unprovenienced material and the purchasing artifacts from the market, some of the museum professionals (2-4) advocate for a change in policy whereby the special finds from cunent excavations in Israel should be placed immediately in the Israel Museum's collection for public display. I wony that when the !AA builds its new headquarters, which is to include exhibition space, the Israel Museum will no longer get the goodies for display and we will have to resort to buying material to enhance our collection (Museum professional 3). The IAA is cunently in the planning stages of building a new headquarters where all of their branches247 will be located in a single building. The National Campus for the Archaeology of Israel will bring together the archaeological, archival, and administrative office under one roof on a site near the Israel Museum (for further infmmation see ). With this current initiative it seems as though the IAA is planning to display the finds from cunent excavations themselves, completely bypassing other museums in the area, which may in turn encourage museums to seek material to display elsewhere, such as the licensed antiquities shops. vii) General Consensus Regardless of whether a particular position supports or opposes the trade, virtually all respondents (apart from the dealer community) promote the long-term or permanent loan of archaeological material to educational institutions (academic and museums). In addition, all agree that material of national value should not be allowed outside of the country. Ofthe ninety-four stakeholders interviewed as part of this research 68% (N = 65) supported the licensed trade in antiquities. At first glance this figure seems to suppmt the cunent practice in Israel. However on closer inspection it is only 68% (that is 35 dealers and 9 collectors of the total 65 interviewees suppmting a tradef48 who advocate for the current manifestation of the trade and there are those amongst this group who would like 247 See the IAA organisational chart Figure 7 .4. 248 It is a confusing coincidence that both figures are 68%. Sixty-five of the original ninety-four supp01i a trade and of that sixty-five, forty-four (or 68%) suppO!i the trade under the cunent IAA licensing scheme. 195 to see some changes in the cunent practices and licensing scheme. The remaining 32% (N = 21) of those supporting a trade, support a trade by the IAA alone and would stipulate many of the parameters. and caveats mentioned in the previous section249 . It is this altemative to the cunent trade- the proposition of the IAA selling antiquities- that became a topic of interest among my respondents and will be examined in the following section. C. Are there any viable altematives to a legal trade in antiquities that satisfy the various stakeholders? The IAA proposal to sell sherds. During the early stages of my field research in Jerusalem, an atiicle appeared in the Israel daily newspaper, Haaretz (see Appendix 9) that the IAA was considering selling pottery sherds to tourists. With this repmi, issues relating to my research became an increasingly hot topic of conversation as the archaeological community, and other stakeholder groups are divided over this issue. The problems of storage space and the cost of permanent curation for millions of sherds are confronting the IAA and this is one solution proffered by the cunent IAA Director250 . This proposal is fraught with problems, not the least of which is the legitimacy of the state selling what is essentially public property as was pointed out-by one govemment employee (1 0)251 . While not part of my original scope of research I was compelled to incorporate interviewee opinion on this issue as everyone wanted to talk about it- either negatively or positively.252 What is impmiant to note is that the cunent proposal is merely to sell sherds, not other items as many advocate for. Figure 7.7 depicts the relative percentage in suppmi of and against the proposition of the IAA to sell sherds. 249 One of the parameters cited by many of the respondents was that there should be a sale of"redundant material" in order to solve the artifact storage problem and generate funds for the IAA. This issue will again rise in the discussion of the third theme - the proposed IAA sale of sherds. Here it would be prudent to reconsider the arguments ofBrodie (2004) and Litvak King (1999) discussed in Chapter I, regarding the establishment of future museums in the region the need for retaining "redundant" material. Issues SUITOUnding who dete1mines what mate1ial is deemed redundant should also be revisited in assessing SUCh a solution. 250 Shuka Dorfman, the cmTent director, is not an archaeologist but a career military person with a background in management. 251 See previous section for fmther discussion. 252 As discussed previously the issue of whether the IAA should sell sherds or not became one of the themes identified in the axial coding process. 196 Stakeholder Group YES NO Total% Archaeologists 54% 46% 100 Collectors 100% 0% 100 Dealers 0% 100% 100 Government Employees 18% 82% 100 Miscellaneous 40% 60% 100 Museum Professionals 100% 0% 100 Figure 7.7 Stakeholder Response- Should the IAA Sell Sherds? Three groups were unanimous in their positions: the dealer community was 100% adamantly opposed to the proposition while the collector and museum professional groups were 100% in favour of yet another venue for potential acquisition, especially where a buyer could be assured of the provenience of the material being purchased. Of those govemment employees interviewed, 82% were against a sale noting the potential for conflicts of interest (the state selling its own heritage that it was supposed to be protecting) and the shortsightedness of the plan as a measure against the budgetary crisis. Those from the archaeological and miscellaneous groups were divided in their opinion. Some stressed that the IAA proposal to sell sherds is a slippe1y slope- once you start with sherds it's only a hop, skip, and a jump to complete vessels, trinkets and coins (Archaeologist 1 0). Supporters of this proposition believe that the average tourist would prefer to purchase their memento from the state rather than from a shady back alley dealer in the Old City of Jerusalem (Collector 2).253 If the !AA sold sherds and other items then purchasers could be assured of a good clean title and provenience. The !AA certificate of authenticity would carry more weight than those produced on a photocopier in the Old City (Govemment Employee 2). For many proponents of the scheme, it echoed a long- held solution to the curation crisis, believing that it will generate a source of income for the IAA to canyon its opei'ations as the IAA faces continuous budgetary cuts. Moreover, the sale of antiquities may also save on expensive storage space. Supporters also predict 253 This description is somewhat misleading as many antiquities shops are located in high-end hotels and shopping precincts in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. For futiher discussion of the types of antiquities shops see Chapter 4. that a massive legal sale of such antiquities will flood the antiquities markets and significantly reduce umegulated trade and illicit excavation. This sentiment was echoed in the response of one archaeologist (18) a single entity in control of the market could actually work to deflate the market and cause the bottom to fall out. Those who object to the state selling antiquities emphasise the inherent ethical problem with this concept. It is philosophically wrong to sell what ostensibly belongs to the nation (Archaeologist 15). This ethical dilemma was underscored repeatedly in interviews conducted with archaeologists, collectors, and dealers. The IAA is responsible for the conservation, preservation, and safekeeping of the antiquities of Israel. The !AA is a governmental authority whose primary pwpose is to maintain Israel's antiquities for the benefit of the public, it is not an economic body aimed at financial profit and it should not be selling antiquities (Archaeologist 2, echoed by Govemment employees 3, 4, 11, and 16). There is some irony that those responsible for the protection of antiquities would be in the business of selling them to the highest bidder. Recently the Archaeological Council, the advisory board to the IAA, was asked to review the proposal. Interviews and newspaper accounts (Bm·kat 2003a) indicate that the Archaeological Council does not support the initiative and would not endorse it until further investigations Gan be conducted (Barkat 2003a).254 In Bm·kat's (2003a) article he stated that the plan was backed by influential collectors and favoured by Israel Finkelstein, at the time head of the Tel A viv University Institute of Archaeology. However, another head of an academic institute of archaeology (quoted anonymously), said that "permitting the IAA to sell even sherds is likened to giving a license to the police to sell drugs" (Barkat 2~03a). Interviews and popular publications indicate a split within the confines of the IAA itself- attested to by the divided govemment employee opinion discussed previously. Many questions, obstacles, and concems arose as a result of this proposed initiative: What would comprise the sale- sherds, fragments, or duplicate pots? Would there really be enough control and oversight by the IAA? Based on past performance of monitoring the cmTent licensed trade by the IAA, the precedent for cracks and loopholes in the supervision and regulation of such a scheme seem almost inevitable. And clearly this type of sale would not satisfy the high-end collector demand 254 The decisions of the Archaeological Council are not made public. 198 for intact vessels of quality. In fact, this design may have a worsening effect on the trade in antiquities, because often the entry of a new competitor stimulates the market. As with other aspects of this research, seemingly more questions than answers arise. IV. CONCLUSION Each of the stakeholders in the licensed trade has a sense of entitlement to the ultimate disposition of the cultural material of this region. Competing claims from archaeologists, collectors, dealers, government employees, museum professionals, and a group of miscellaneous expe1ts associated with the trade all profess to have the best interest of the artifacts and the cultural heritage legacy as their first priority. Entangled in these positions are issues of gender, nationality (foreigners, Israeli, Jordanian, or Palestinians), religious background (Christian, Jew, or Muslim), each with its own cultural worldview, rationales, and emotional triggers. Despite the divided opinions each group was equally as passionate in the defence of their position on the various issues. Drawing general conclusions are difficult, of course, but this study has underscored several valuable points: 1. The destruction of archaeological sites and the subsequent loss of knowledge as a result of looting are devastating to the cultural heritage of the region. Looting has -.... to be stopped. Opinion is divided on how to accomplish this goal and on the reasons why looting occurs in the first place. 2. The trade in antiquities is demand driven and in order to lessen looting we must examine demand. For most respondents the demand referred to here is that of the high-end collector, not the tourist buying the occasional oil lamp or coin. 3. The cunent licensed trade in antiquities in Israel has too many illegal elements255 to be considered a successful legal market. A complete re-evaluation and overhaul of the system are required. F~ture directions this research can take in the investigation of whether a legal trade in antiquities is an effective detenent to the looting of archaeological sites is the 255 The illegal elements include the selling of recently looted and stolen material through the exchange of register numbers; the cunent management practices of the IAA and legislative loopholes pennit certificates of authenticity to be forged and for material of special significance to leave the country. 199 focus of Chapter 8. In order to anive at potential alternatives to combat archaeological site destruction programs and initiatives- a buy back program in Mali, community action plans in the PA, advocacy, and the rendering of collecting of unprovenienced material as socially unacceptable- associated with the themes of demand and looting are examined. Chapter 9 revisits the original research questions guiding this thesis and concludes the work. CHAPTER EIGHT FUTURE DIRECTIONS "I am the Lorax256. I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees for the trees, have no tongues." (The Lorax, Dr. Suess 1971) The original research question posed in this study was whether or not a legally sanctioned market is the solution to the illicit trade in antiquities, a position espoused by certain interest groups (collectors, dealers). This inquiry provides an initial basis for refuting the argument, held by those who champion a 'free-market' approach, that the legal market is an answer to archaeological site destruction. Empirical data suppmt a direct connection between demand for artifacts and looting within the context of the legal market in Israel. Most also agree that the cunent manifestation of the legal market in Israel is inherently flawed and in fact does not function as a fully legal markee57 . There are too many illegal elements infiltrating the legal premise that render it unmanageable, leading directly to the looting of archaeological sites. Results of this research indicate that demand drives the market and as such, examining the role of demand is essential. How demand is created in markets for cultural material around the world obviously differs but some general parallels do emerge. Seemingly inseparable from the demand for archaeological material is the looting of archaeological sites. Key to making imoads to archaeological site protection is a greater understanding of not only demand but also looting- other factors that contribute to looting and potential alternatives for local populations. The following chapter will examine future research directions in light of the demand and looting theme of this thesis. 25 6 "The Lorax is a children's story written by Dr. Seuss chronicling the plight of the environment and the Lorax (a "mossy, bossy" man-like creature), who speaks for the trees against the greedy Once-ler. The book is commonly recognised as a parable concerning industrialised society and the environment. This story is often used in environmental science classes to teach the tragedy of the commons." From . In speaking for the trees the Lorax advocates on their behalf. Subsitute trees for archaeological sites and the Lorax could be an archaeo-lobbyist speaking on behalf of the sites who cannot speak for themselves. 257 Meaning a market containing no illegal aspects. 201 I. DEMAND Previously, eff01ts to protect against looting focused on looters and the supply- side of the market. Local and national governments have enforced laws, anested illegal excavators and fined middlemen, leaving the tlue culprits, the collectors of unprovenienced material, unpunished. "It is the money ofthe wealthy collectors which destroys culture and COlTupts societies, not the activities of the poor and disadvantaged diggers and impoverished bureaucracies," (Brodie and Doole 2001: 2-3). The market model illustrated in previous chapters implies that the illegal trade depends upon the willingness of consumers to purchase unprovenienced and unprovenanced atiifacts and a lack of awareness in the trade in general (Alder and Polk 2002: 48). "From the collection of a Swiss gentleman" or "from a collection in Hong Kong" should be renounced as acceptable f01ms of provenance. If collectors258 refused to buy these types of antiquities and if the general populace understood the concomitant inetrievable loss of knowledge, the trade in antiquities would surely be diminished (Kersel and Luke 2003). The world of antiquities is a unique place whose standards and practices often do not translate well into the legal realm. An active, dynamic market marked by legal and illegal asyrnmeti·ies, unequal power among the stakeholders and secrecy can have the propensity to leave the cqnsumer in an uninformed and inauspicious predicament- buying unprovenienced· a1tifacts. A system with greater lucidity and oversight, coupled with an advocacy program aimed at presenting incontrove1tible evidence connecting archaeological site destruction from looting with consumer demand, could go a long way to ameliorate this uninformed and inauspicious predicament. When the protection of the archaeological resources is deeply ingrained in our culture, embraced by the national citizenry, their elected officials, and the global community, looting will lessen and our knowledge of the past will increase immeasurably. A. Collecting as Anti-Social Behaviour In Trade in Antiquities Patrick O'Keefe (1997: 61-64) proposes that in order to reduce theft and the destruction of archaeological sites we should "render collecting as an 258 Museums are included in this collecting category. See Brodie and Renfrew 2005; Gerstenblith 2004a: 597-609; and Renfrew 2000b for further discussion on the role of museums in the purchase of unprovenienced miifacts and the need for greater transparency in this realm of collecting. 202 anti-social behaviour" as we have done with the wearing of fur or the picking of rare wildflowers. During interviews with two archaeologists (13 and 15), they also suggested wildflowers as an analogy for antiquities collecting. I will use the metaphor of wild flowers in Israel. When I was young, it was a weekly practice to go on the weekend to pick wildflowers and take them home to look at them in your house. As I grew older, there were more and more campaigns against picking flowers and encouraging people to leave them in the wild. Through advertisements and public announcements, people got the message. Now hardly anyone picks the flowers they all just drive around the count1y viewing them on the weekend. (Archaeologist 15) By making it a social no-no (like smoking, wearing fur, or trade in ivory) to pick vvildjlowers guilt is instilled by association and we just don't do it anymore. (Archaeologist 13) By comparison, both agreed that public education and "shaming" collectors259 into not purchasing unprovenienced archaeological material is a key factor in reducing the looting of archaeological sites . This too, is a critical point of O'Keefe's argument for collecting as an anti-social behaviour "not all collecting, but the collecting of unprovenienced material" (O'Keefe 199}: 62) [emphasis mine] . The dissemination of the results of this research, confinning a causal relationship between demand and looting means that the collector can no longer claim ignorance when making a purchase. When demanding an artifact, collectors must require all (including original find spot) of the background knowledge of their potential purchase and if this information cannot be produced the negotiations should end. Brodie and Renfrew (2005: 239) state that "[i]t is the continuing indiscriminate acquisition of 'unprovenanced' antiquities by private collectors and by museums that lies at the root of the looting problem" and my research confi1ms that by not asking any questions during the procurement of unprovenienced material, this action (or lack thereof) may result in continued looting and the phenomenon depicted in figure 8.1 -rewarding the looter. Tlu·ough the purchase of unprovenienced material, the collector is indirectly pmticipating in a cycle of rewarding the looter for an illegal practice. 259 A reminder that collector includes p1ivate individuals, educational institutions, museums all of those who collect archaeological mate1ial. 203 Clandestine excavation = the destruction of the archaeological heritage Indirectly rewarding the looter, in turn encouraging them to continue looting Figure 8.1 Unprovenienced artifacts in the market place Museums and collectors acquisition of unprovenienced artifacts Rewarding the Looter Diagram. Asking for provenience and assurance of good title should be second nature and an essential characteristic of the ethical standards of each party in the trade in antiquities.260 According to archaeologist Ellen Herscher (1987: 213), "real progress in diminishing the illegal traffic in antiquities and the looting of archaeological sites will ultimately be accomplished not through law enforcement but through the ethical codes of the pertinent groups and the influence they exert on societal norms as a whole". There are no codes of ethics for individual private collectors- excepting the Swiss Association of Collectors (O'Keefe 1997: 44)- tourists or local buyers, and there are very few public education programs which depict the connection between the illegal excavation of 260 See Chapter 6 for discussion surrounding the secretive practices of the trade in antiquities. 204 archaeological sites and consumer demand. These should be highlighted in the public sphere. In an analogy with the diamond trade the Kimberley Process261 was encouraged and the outrage over conflict diamonds262 was exacerbated by the discovery that al-Qaeda converted US $20 million into conflict diamonds - an accessible and practical currency for tenorism (Josipovic 2003). Dealers associated directly with key operatives in the al- Qaeda network have been known to purchase diamonds from rebels in Siena Leone and then sell them in Europe (Grant and Taylor 2004). The 9111 Commission Report claims that al-Qaeda, anticipating that its accounts would be frozen after the September 11 attacks, sought to safeguard its finances by sinking its money into conflict diamonds (National Commission 2004). Antiquities, like diamonds, can be easily hidden, hold their value and remain untraceable so that recent repmts (Bogdanos 2005b, Kaplan 2005, Leyden 2005, Indo-Asian News Service 2005) outlining a connection between antiquities and al-Qaeda come as no surprise. "Bin Laden continues to come up with funds raised from sympathetic mosques and other supporters, but the money no longer flows so easily. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have banned unregulated fundraising at mosques, and westem spy agencies now watch closely how the money flows from big Islamic charities. One result: Some jihadists have joined in wholesale pillaging of Afghanistan's heritage by smuggling antiquities out of the country--a trade nearly as lucrative as narcotics. Among the items being sold clandestinely on the world market: centuries-old Buddhist mt and other works from the pre-Islamic world. Apparently, al Qaeda's interest is not new; before 9/11, hijack ringleader Mohamed Atta approached a German a1t professor about peddling Afghan antiquities, Getmany's Federal Criminal Police Office revealed this year. Atta's reason, reports Der Spiegel magazine: "to finance the purchase of an airplane." (Kaplan 2005: 40) Will repmts connecting the antiquities market with tenorism, and al-Qaeda in pmticular, be enough to alert the collecting public to illegal elements involved with the purchase of 26 1 "The Kimberley Process is ajoi.nt govemment, intemational diamond industry and civil society initiative to stem the flow of conflict diamonds- rough diamonds that are used by rebel movements to finance wars against legitimate governments" from the website . 262 A conflict diamond (also known as blood diamonds) is a diamond mined in a war zone and sold, usually clandestinely, in order to finance an insurgent or invading atmy's war efforts. (Definition from ). 205 a Ghandaran head? The collector who purchases an unprovenienced artifact can no longer be sure who is benefiting from the purchase, not sure what the investment supp011s, not sure of what material or finan'cial connections might tie their consumption to elements of society they abhor. Did proceeds from the purchase of the Iron II pillar-based figurine fund al-Qaeda? A campaign for greater transparency and asking more questions would help to illuminate the grey area between legal and illegal transactions. Using a series ofbalance sheets (practical, moral, social), Simon Mackenzie (2005b: 211-221) illustrates that the motivation behind collecting is often that the negative action of buying an unprovenienced artifact is outweighed by the positive action of saving the mtifact. Mackenzie 's solution to this prevailing sense of what he calls "entitlement" is through encouragement of moral and social empathy in the market- looting is a destructive practice (moral empathy) and the cultural heritage of the archaeologically-rich nation is diminished by looting (social empathy) (Mackenzie 2005b: 226). A successful evolution of attitudes such as the one suggested by Mackenzie is what Alder and Polk (2002) refer to as moral persuasion. This type of initiative has been demonstrably successful in campaigns such as cigarette smoking. While smoking has not been eliminated in all cities and towns, places in the UK and US have enacted or are in the process of enacting as in the case of England smoke-free legislation. This behaviour modification is the result of advocacy campaigns, focused on social persuasion, not criminal sanctions (Alder and Polk 2002). Advocacy and archaeo-lobbying can play a role in the campaign to render the collecting of unprovenienced archaeological material as socially unacceptable. By highlighting recent cases like the Euphronios Vase at the Met, the court case between Italy and the former curator at the Getty Museum Mm·ion True, and the James Ossuary consumers could be made aware of the deleterious effects on their own pocket books if the piece they acquire in good faith actually turns out to be a looted item that is then embroiled in a repatriation debate. Let the case of Autocephalous Creek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts Inc263 act as a warning to collectors: dealer and collector Peg Goldberg ended up bankrupt after her purchase of four sixth 263 Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg & Feldman Fine A1is Inc. 717 F. Supp. 1374 (S.D. In d. 1989). Affi1med 917 F. 2d 278 (7111 Cir. 1990). For fmiher discussion of the case see Gerstenblith 2004a: 428-53 . 206 century mosaics originally looted from a church in northem Cyprus. Caveat Emptor- buy nothing without a solid provenience or even better, buy nothing at all. B. Advocates and Watchdogs - the Key to Ending Illicit Trade? Traditionally, when tackling issues of illicit trade, govemments have focused their attentions on the supply side of the dilemma. As the actions of the anti-theft unit of the IAA demonstrate, they consistently target the looters, middlemen, and dealers. Regional govemments in Israel, Jordan, and the PA also work hard at reducing the supply of illicit material crossing borders, relying on interdictions of illegal archaeological material from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Theoretically, these efforts are admirable but because they have received the 1 ion's share of government attention, the perpetrators of illegal acts have devised countless ways to circumvent the govemment programs, adapting their operations, movement of material, networks, procurement, and distribution or sacrificing some actors in the network for the larger system. The reasons why govemments and intemational agencies focus on the supply-side of the trade are manifold. For one, identification of the "bad guys" in the fight against the looting of archaeological sites is much easier. Excavating without a permit is clearly illegal under current law ; but the unquestioning purchase of archaeological material of dubious provenience is not illegal per se, however ethically suspect. In addition, the 'bad guys' are generally local indigenous inhabitants with little political clout or cultural power, whereas collectors of the most expensive antiquities frequently have friends in the conidors of power and can usually employ high-priced legal teams if needed. Protecting borders against the import and export of archaeological material is a much easier response than developing programs aimed at reducing a consumer predilection. Curbing demand enters the tricky tenain of social policy, values, and education, while curbing supply relies on the use of force, coercion, and law enforcement (Nairn 2005). Concentrating effmts on the looting of archaeological sites does not appear to be working, however, so a redirection of efforts, is required if any headway is to be made in the cessation of looting of the archaeological record. 207 i) Advocates Both the trade in conflict diamonds and the trade in endangered species have their advocates; those who act as watchdogs over the illegal and legal aspects of the trade, attempting to ensure the protection of the threatened natural resources. An international network of government and private conservation groups (known collectively as TRAFFIC) monitor the illicit trade in endangered species. They act as a type of clearinghouse for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), monitoring the global trade, evaluating the associated legal and economic initiatives, and watching population levels of species on the CITES endangered lists (Oldfield 2003). Frustrated by the diamond industry's lack of concern as to where diamonds came from and their role in wars [documented in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Liberia, and Sierra Leone (Grant and Taylor 2004)], advocates took action. Various nongovernmental organisations [NGOs] (Amnesty International, Global Witness) act as overseers of the diamond industry, focusing their campaign on consumer's rights- the right to know whether a particular diamond has helped fund a war (Grant and Taylor 2004, Witness 2006). By highlighting the abuses of human rights in the diamond industry and the threats to endangered flora and fauna, NGOs within national and transnational advocacy networks work together to create a ' dense set of connections that share infmmation, values, and services. As a result, campaigns generate attention to issues and help set future political and legislative agendas by provoking media attention, debates, hearings, and meetings (Keck and Sikkink 1998: 25). NGOs have become an essential part of the picture, both because they have grown extremely active in the past decade and because they bring tools and capabilities that governments usually lack. Grassroots campaigns, traditional relief organisations, and activists have become vital components in the fight for causes. NGOs distinguish themselves in the battle against trafficking by doing what governments are unable or unwilling to do: 1. they work across borders without the cumbersome diplomatic negotiations that often accompany State to State dialogue, and 2. NGOs are able to raise funds, which are dedicated to a single purpose- like the banning of the trade in ivory- unlike govenunents, which must cope with dictates from the capital, the seat of 208 government and control (Nafm 2005). NGOs and grassroots groups are often able to expose corruption and can galvanise the media to support their pariicular cause. "Did someone die for your diamond?" is an effective media campaign instigated by a group of NGOs in order to heighten public awareness to the connection of diamonds to human rights violations and killings in Angola and Siena Leone (Grant and Taylor 2004, Monastersky 2002, Silverstein 2001). Economic analyst Moises Nafm (2005: 204) states that the greatest advantage ofNGOs over other advocates (government or businesses) is their ability to "push the envelope" in order to find aggressive new ways to illustrate issues, pressing awareness and enforcement. Uninhibited by national governmental or intemational strictures in some instances they are held accountable to no one but themselves and the cause they support. NGOs and advocates are not without flaws. They are often fragmented and are often motivated by conflicting ideals (religion, morals, and economics). An alliance between feminists and the Catholic Church to end the sex-trade in the Far East is unlikely to foster other initiatives supported by two such disparate groups. "Advocacy has become a full-fledged global profession, with its innovators, best practices, and iconic figures-along with lawyers, PR fitms, fund-raisers, nonprofit consultants, and other service providers eager to sell their skills," (Nafm 2005: 204) Advocates only need a worthy cause to tum public opinion around in a short period of time. Along with pressure and support to pass legislation, advocates play a major role in distributing new ideas and causes. Advocating for maimed or dead children, animals, birds, or flowers has an emotional appeal that resonates in a way that ancient artifacts might not. Is this the reason why there are so few (Saving Antiquities for Everyone [SAFE], Heritage Watch, PACE to name a few) advocates for archaeology? Altematively, as a discipline, are we missing an opportunity to capitalise on public sympathy and outrage at the loss of cultural heritage? ii) A Missed Opportunity? Archaeo-Lobbyists Very few in the We stem world are unaware of the events sunounding the looting ofthe Iraq Museum and Archives in Baghdad in the aftermath of the invasion by coalition forces in April of 2003.264 Headlines like- "[I]rreparable loss of cultural treasures of enormous impotiance to all humanity", "US army was told to protect looted museum", "Rumsfeld Dismisses Criticism about Iraqi Museum Looting", ·and "Treasure Hunt. For Antiquities Expe1is, the Chase Is On to Recover the Relics Looted from Iraq's National Museum" in the pages of leading newspapers, magazines, and online resources, shocked the world. Regardless of their regional specialisation, archaeologists were of one voice in condemning the response of the coalition forces to the looting and widespread destmction of archaeological sites and monuments in Iraq. However, the looting of the Iraq Museum was the topic of discussion, not only for archaeologists and those with a direct connection to cultural heritage, but for the general populace. Iraq, long held to be the cradle of civilization, was being looted and as such, our collective global heritage was being destroyed. In April of 2003, there were no international archaeological advocacy groups who could capitalise on the growing public sentiment suppmiing the protection of cultural heritage on behalf of a global conununity.265 Regionally specific advocacy organisations like the Archaeological Conservanc/66 in the US, the Cultural Heritage Protection Research Centre267 in Beijing, Heritage Watch268 in Cambodia, the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre (IARC)26: in Cambridge, or the Society for the Protection of Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage (SPACH)270 worked within their own mandates and spheres of relevance but did not combine forces to galvanise the global conununity. Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE)271 "was founded in response to the ransacking 264 There are numerous accounts, analysis, discussion, and explanation of the events of Ap1il 2003 among them are Atwood 2004; Bogdanos 2005a, 2005b, 2005c; Brodie 2003, fmihcoming; Lawler 2003; Polk and Schuster 2005; and Pollock 2005 . 265 Organisations like the World Monuments Fund (WMF) and the Global He1itage Fund (GHF) < http://www.globalheiitagefund.org/home.html> focus p1imarily on the built environment, and on-site preservation rather than proactive advocacy in the legislative arena. UNESCO seems like the likely progenitor of an international, united movement but until recently the US was not a member and there is some distrust among the various nation states. 266 http://www.americanarchaeology.com/aaabout.html 267 http://www.bjchp.org/ 268 http://www.he1itagewatch.org/ · 269 !ARC's purpose is to " raise public awareness in the UK and intemationally about this issue [illicit antiquities] and seek approp1iate national and intemationallegislation, codes of conduct and other conventions to place restraint upon it." From the IARC website: . 270 http://spach . info/ehistory.htm 27 1 http://www.savingantiquities.org/ 210 . of the National Museum of h·aq in Baghdad but are they too late to act as a global archaeo-lobby272 organisation? SAFE, "through patine.rships with academia, advetiising, media, legal and law enforcement communities, develops educational programs and media campaigns to inform the public about the ineversible damage that results from looting, smuggling and trading illicit antiquities" (SAFE 2005). While based in the US, SAFE's mission is international - bringing the current looting epidemic to the attention of the intemational public and encouraging the global community to act to protect the archaeological landscape (Lazms forthcoming) .273 Recently SAFE has been successful in rousing the archaeological community to testify before the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) about the ravages of looting on archaeological resources in Italy and China. Under the US Convention on Cultural Propetiy Implementation Act274 (CPIA), countries affected by looting and the illegal trade in antiquities can request a bilateral agreement with the US to place impoti restrictions on archaeological and ethnographic material under threat275 • An integral part of the cultural propetiy request is the open session before the CP AC where members of the public can present their position in suppoti of, or against the pending request. This provides an opportunity for the respective interest groups to present empirical data on looting, the trade, and the effects of pillaging at the local, national, and intemational levels. In the past, representation by dealing and collecting organisations has far surpassed that of the archaeological communitl76 . In their newly established role as archaeological advocates, SAFE made relevant presentations at the recent CPAC meetings reviewing the China request (see Figure 8.2) and the renewal of the existing 272 At the SAA meetings in Salt Lake City in Ap1il of2005 Don Fowler, University of Nevada, made an impassioned plea to the audience to take up mms and become what he referred to as archaeo-lobbyists. Dr. Fowler was a discussant in the Symposium: Examining the Historical Context for the Antiquities Act, 1879-1906, SAA Annual Meeting, Ap1il 2, 2005. 273 It is interesting to note that Cindy Ho, the driving force behind SAFE, is not an archaeologist. 274 Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2601) is the US legislation enacted in 1983, which implements the 1970 UNESCO Convention. 275 For fUJther inf01mation on the CPIA, CPAC, and bilateral agreements see and Magness-Gardiner 2004. 276 Attendance at open sessions of the CPAC has seen representatives from the AAA, the AlA, and the SAA and usually a US archaeologist or two who work in the country requesting the bilateral agreement. At the open session of the Italian request (Autunm of 1999) there were almost seventy representatives of the dealing and collecting communities and there were less than ten people representing the archaeological community. 211 Italian bilateral agreement. At the same time, SAFE presented a petition of names of people supporting the Chinese and Italian initiatives, which they gathered through their public advocacy program. SAFE's advocacy work is echoed in other nascent organisations like the Student Affairs Interest Group (SAIG) of the AlA, which mounted letter writing campaigns on recent archaeological legislation before the US congress. Initiatives like SAFE are making inroads in the fight to raise public awareness about the looting of archaeological sites, but they face ongoing challenges, some of which come from their own constituents. Figure 8.2 .. .. ., •1' ,, '' ' (_loi x) ~Go I Stop I Pront I F•vonte: * I R•fi""' I ,.,,,.. Cl>oi= 0 SAVING AN TIQUITI ES FOR E V E RYONE ALERT STOP THE PLUNDER QF CHINA'S CULTURAL HERITAGE What are the Issues? Every da) . looting and plundering ol priceless cultural treasures A ! SlJ Fr OI:t BaJ'-:o-y tl" 'i Pllt><:'l 1 Murowd11·:·\ l,l,uc!-116. 200' Reports from China ... · Ple .. u.~ read Illicit Exca vation In Cont2moorary China ~)' 0•'9·t~a"'.,• p 'J b~~'le1 "l TrttiY.! m 1/iiC•~ 4n';Qo:::.es The ['~s:•u: tt-:-n c ~ '"~ ll'v~:o ~:~:.~=~-~~~; ::~'·::_~ ~o::,:::_-.:~:~4M v SAFE advocacy campaign for the Chinese request for a bilateral agreement with the US (Image from ). We (the archaeological and museum community) are not always of one voice on the issues surrounding the trade in antiquities and this may be the reason why we cannot form a unified position. The various professional organisations (AAM, AlA, AAA, ASOR, ICAHM of ICOMOS, and SAA)277 are not always all "on the same page" when it 277 American Association of Museums (AAM), Archaeological Institute of America (AlA), American Anthropological Association (AAA), American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), International Committee of Archaeological Heritage Management of the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICAHM of ICOMOS), and the Society for American Archaeology (SAA). 212 - .......... --------------- ---- comes to policies regarding the publication and display ofunprovenienced material, the causal relationship between demand and the looting of archaeological sites. An avenue of future res~arch would be to uncover the reasons behind why we (the archaeological community) have not worked together to speak as one voice in the protection of our archaeological resources. We may be able to hazard some guesses at the answers- the ethically disparate views of archaeologists with careers in epigraphy or papyrology who see nothing wrong with the publication of unprovenienced material, pitted against those archaeologists who will touch nothing without a secure find spot; museum professionals who loath to tum away potential donations of suspect archaeological material; academic depa11ments who do not recognise the protection of our archaeological past as intellectually relevant and discourage their employees from acting as advocates; the discipline of archaeology who does not see its own role in the stimulation of demand which is directly related to looting. The power of scholarly writings, media coverage, and museum exhibits to stimulate demand has been documented and mentioned previously (see Chapter 1). Heath (1973 : 261) also documents these links in his discovery that the upsurge in looting in Costa Rica was related to an exhibition of Costa Rican antiquities held in Mexico City. Future research should involve a similar type of qualitative study to this thesis whereby key figures in cultural heritage protection - people like George Abungu (Goveming Council of the Kenya Cultural Cenh·e), Neil Brodie (IARC), Hester Davis (Arkansas Archaeological Survey), Ricardo Elia (Boston University), Patty Gerstenblith (DePaul College of Law), Donny George (National Museums Iraq), Ellen Herscher (f01mer editor of the Antiquities Market section of the Joumal of Field Archaeology), Julie Hollowell (Killam Fellow, University of British Columbia), Claire Lyons (Getty Research Institute), John Malcolm Russell (Massachusetts College o Art), He Shuzhong (Director ofBeijing Cultural Heritage Protection Research Centre), and Karen D. Vitelli (former editor of the Antiquities Market section of the Joumal of Field Archaeology)- are interviewed and the collected data is analysed for potential pattems and solutions to a lack of unity in the archaeological world. Reconciling the incongment views of the various interest groups is one-key factor in successful advocacy and archaeo-lobbying. Archaeologists and those associated with 213 cultural heritage need to become stewards of our historic and cultural resources with one voice supporting the common goal of the prevention of archaeological site destruction as a result of illicit excavations. Among the first campaigns in the age of archaeo-lobbying advocacy should be an emphasis on greater tr·ansparency within the trade and efforts aimed at convincing consumers (low-end and high-end) that collecting unprovenienced archaeological artifacts is unacceptable. Il. FUTURE LEGAL AND MARKET INVESTIGATIONS The examination of the legal market in Israel is but one case study, but there are others that could aid in testing the hypothesis that a legal tr·ade in antiquities helps diminish looting. In order to investigate the legal market and its implications for archaeology and the looting of the archaeological landscape, further research is required both from a regional perspective and from a historical approach. Neil Brodie's (2005) examination of the legislative efforts of Greece and India to regulate the internal market for antiquities is an excellent example of the direction of future research required to answer further questions smTOunding the usefulness of statutory regulation, primarily at the source of the trade. An investigation of internal markets for antiquities and the prescription of tough expmt controls - as counte1measures to the looting of archaeological sites- are much needed. The purpose of such internal legislation aimed at keeping cultural items inside their countries of origin, while simultaneously satisfying the national consumer demand for owning a piece of the past, is an avenue yet to be explored in the Middle East. Given that the P A has a section (Pmt 3 Article 8) in their cunent draft legislation, which leaves the establishment of an internal trade in cultural material an option, the need for additional research into the potential impact of this type of trade on the archaeological landscape is clear. Additionally, a study of looting, demand, and archaeological praxis is also wananted. Is archaeology the public face of looting as many locals believe278? An investigation into the colonial legacy of the partage279 system and its demise would provide much needed insight into the development of archaeological practice in the 278 See Chapter 3 for further discussion . 279 I . The action of dividing, esp. into shares; division ( esp. of inheritable propet1y), pat1ition; shating. 2. The practice of appropriating cultural at1efacts or works of at1 from poorer countries for display in Western museums (OED). 214 Middle East. An examination of the cessation of the partage method of divvying up antiquities may also shed light on aspects of the legal market argument. When granted a1tifacts legally as part of this ari:angement, Westem museums and institutions sought greater amounts of material, which may have lead to the scheme's demise. Once heralded as an equitable solution for all who pa1ticipate archaeology, the termination of pmtage may not have been a reflexive, retentionist move, but instead a reaction to years of abuse of the system by foreign excavators. Patticularl y intriguing is the division of the spoils of labour, legally instituted as part of the 1884 Ottoman Law and the concept of baksheesh- which may be a precursor to 'rewarding the looter'. Lastly, in the 1970s and 1980s, Egypt and Jordan banned the legal sale and expo1tation of archaeological material outside of their borders.280 The effects of these prohibitions on the looting of archaeological material are pa1ticularly germane to future studies of the legal trade in antiquities. What led these countries to proscribe the sale, and have these measures been effective? Anecdotal reports and my own research (in the case of Jordan) confi1m that recently looted archaeological artifacts from Egypt and Jordan are still making their way into the legal markets in Israel and elsewhere (the UK and the US). Inquiry into the efficacy of a total ban on trade and the imposition of export restrictions is required to provide a clearer picture of the trade networks, actors, and conduits in the regwn. Ill. LOOTING What if demand, vis-a-vis the legal market is not the only causal factor in the looting of archaeological sites? A second avenue of future research should involve futther investigations into the forces behind looting and programs that might help counter looting. A. Legal Market Demand and Looting Many respondents in this research declared that while there was definitive evidence to support claims of a causal relationship between looting and demand for 280 Egyptian Law No. 117 of 1983 (Law on the Protection of Antiquities); Jordanian Provisional Law No. 12 of 1976, which became petmanent with the enactment of the Jordanian Antiquities Law No. 21 of 1988. 215 archaeological material, there may also be other factors contributing to looting. 281 The market in ancient artifacts has always had a supply problem. Apatt from the resale of objects in the possession of collectors- objects, that is, already in circulation- maintaining a profitable market tempo has left dealers with two major options. One possibility is to attempt to create new categories of objects deemed wmthy of sale, purchase, and collection. Such a tactic involves the manipulation of tastes and perceptions so as to imbue previously disdained or ignored objects with new or heightened value. The other possibility is far more nefarious: the encouragement of continued mining of known sources for objects of established resale value. The connection, ove1t or cove1t, between dealers and looters who dig for artifacts is well established and is further confitmed by this research. Far less understood are the looters themselves . This group is strangely anonymous in the literature on the illicit market in antiquities . Usually only the devastated tombs, pit marked sites and gaping holes they leave behind are left to mark their destructive illegal excavating. For the most part, discussions of why people choose to sell the past conclude (without more than cursory investigation) that the economic straits in which these suppliers find themselves are so dire that looting is an attractive solution.282 Recent studies of the legal market in Alaska by Hollowell (2006; Hollowell-Zimmer 2003, 2004) dominate the literature on looters and the situation in Alaska is somewhat of an anomaly as my PhD research has shown. In her work with diggers (as she refers to them) from the St. Lawrence Island, Hollowell had greater success accessing those involved with undocumented digging (her te1minology) because it is legal to dig and sell the finds in the Bering Strait region of Alaska (Hollowell 2006). The cunent paradoxical situation in Israel and the P A whereby it is legal to sell in Israel but illegal to excavate without a pe1mit in either Israel or the PA creates a situation where the pillaging of sites is rife, making access to looters involved in the illegal aspects of the so-called legal market virtually impossible. Information from this research in Israel and the P A demonstrates that looting is fuelled by a variety of forces including war, poverty, market demand, and even as an empowering act of resistance to the occupying nation. Investigating this stakeholder 281 See Chapter 7 for an examination of the causal rel ationship between demand and looting. 282 Refening again to the phenomenon of subsistence looting discussed in the work of Hollowell-Zimmer 2004 and Matsuda 1998. 216 group would provide further insights into the practices and motivations of the looter. This information may then lead to the development of countermeasures to looting such as the community action initiative of the Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange [PACE] 283 , or the CultureBank program in Mali, both of which instil greater awareness of the impmtance of cultural heritage protection vis-a-vis potential tourism revenue and other economic benefits. B. Community Action As discussed previously the economic situation in the PA is dire and pillage has become an attractive option for those out of work, out of money, out of hope, and out of patience with the Israeli Civil Administration in the PA, or the PA government itself. The existing legal market in Israel ensures that profits from the sale of illegally excavated material are readily available. The PA is archaeologically very rich and the threatened loss of cultural heritage from plunder is disastrous for the Palestinian economy on many levels. When Israel handed over control of the major cities in the West Bank and most of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority between 1995 and 1996, under the Oslo Accords, it refused to hand over control of most of the archaeological sites (Scham and Yahya 2003). The Israelis insisted on retaining responsibility for sites considered "holy" to Jews (Scham and Yahya 2003: 407)284 . However, the Civil Administration in Israel tasked with site security and conservation has made little effmt to fulfil this responsibility but at the same time, has prevented the Palestinians from canying out any interpretation or protection programs. This fractured oversight of the cultural heritage of the PA means that policing and monitoring of archaeological sites is minimal at best. Recognising the worsening situation, and the lure ·of easy money from looting of archaeological sites, PACE initiated a project with villagers in the Ramallah area to engage locals in small- scale effmts to stop the deterioration of sites as a result of looting and neglect. At the biblical sites ofBethel (modem Beitin) and Gibeon (modem el-Jib) (see Map 8.1) PACE has galvanised the population to cleanup the sites, monitor the area for 283 PACE is a Palestinian NGO whose mission is to promote Palestinian culture through education, cultural hetitage preservation, research, and exchange programs. For fut1her inf01mation see 284 See Chapters 3 and 4 for fut1her discussion of oversight and the Civil Administration in the P A. Map 8.1 SYRIA * Bethel (Beitin) Gibeon (et-Jib) SALDl ARAIIL\ The Biblical Sites ofBethel and Gibeon (Image from ). looters, and encourage tourists to return to visit the sites. PACE has demonstrated how the sites can be beneficial to the villagers through increased revenues from tourism, but only if the sites are accessible, presentable, and intact. The organisation started by laying the groundwork in various villages where cultural he1itage was in jeopardy from abandonment, looting, and vandalism (Yahya 2002). The team developed a rapport with the local communities and began an intensive public awareness campaign to encourage local stakeholders to safeguard and protect their cultural legacy. The PACE program included a series of community town-hall meetings, encouraging public participation, offering slide shows and lectures by community leaders and experts in the cultural heritage field (see Figure 8.3) (Yahya 2002: 280). Figure 8.3 Meeting of community leaders and heritage experts (March 2004). As a result of this initiative a large number of inhabitants took part in cleanups, restoration, rehabilitation, and interpretive sign installation at various sites in the Ramallah area (see Figure 8.4 for before and after images of the clean up at el-Jib). Figure 8.4 Before and after images of the restoration at el-Jib (Image from ). 219 -The preservation scheme provided jobs for over one hundred individuals, a significant factor in helping to combat unemployment in the area (Yahya 2002: 280). Villagers employed in various cultural protection initiatives are no longer looting the sites. A pattial impetus behind the community motivation is certainly the lure of economic gain from increased tourism and potential employment. While on a site visit to el-Jib with Dr. Adel Yahya, director of PACE, (see Figure 8.5) the local villagers reported an incident of looting. Some of the elderly women from the village noticed two strangers hanging around the site. Later that day, alerted by their grandmother, three young men went to the archaeological site and found the strangers digging in one of the Byzantine burial caves associated with the site (Figure 8.6). The looters, who were from the Hebron area (south of El-Jib ), fled the scene. We would never loot at el-Jib we know how important the site is to our village. Without the site, no tourists would come to our area. Those guys were from Hebron [said with great disdain] they don 't knotv any better. They would loot anything, stated the young men from the village when Dr. Yahya questioned them about the incident. It was clear from the confrontation that the local community is working together to protect what they consider a valuable resource. In a discussion with Dr. Yahya about the successes of the community programs in Ramallah and potential future initiatives in other areas of the P A, I asked about similar projects in Hebron, Samaria, or Jenin, all areas consistently under threat from looting. Dr. Yahya stated that PACE has plans to target other high risk areas but the cunent political situation precluded PACE from reaching the areas on a daily basis. The community action projects require a consistent investment of time by the employees of PACE: town- / hall type meetings with the local inhabitants, site visits, community cleanup days, oversight of site management, and public school outreach for concerted periods. Initiatives of this type would require PACE employees to live in Hebron or travel there on a daily basis for weeks, if not months. With the constmction of the security batTier between Israel and the P A what would normally be a fotty- five minute drive between 220 Figure 8.5 Adel Yahya, director of PACE (white shirt, no hat) leads a tour to el-Jib Figure 8.6 Looted Byzantine burial chamber at el-Jib, with associated graffiti. Ramallah and Hebron now can take up to three hours.285 The community action projects initiated by PACE are enabling the organisation to meet its goals of preserving and promoting Palestinian cultural heritage. Unfortunately the current political situation in the region prevents PACE from making greater progress in other areas of the P A. Similar to the project in Mali, to be discussed below, the PACE initiative is based on community education and instilling in the local inhabitants a sense of pride in their cultural heritage. Once vested in their cultural past, the citizens of Beitin, el-Jib, and Fombori (Mali) are keen to help preserve and protect the cultural legacy for future generations. Another commonality in these two programs is the economic incentives behind the initiatives. In both Mali and the PA, local inhabitants can benefit financially from the continued preservation of their archaeological and ethnographic artifacts- either through microcredit or the tourism industry. From this analysis it appears that emphasizing the connection between preserving the past and economic gain for the future is a key factor in galvanizing the local populations to protect their cultural resources. An additional factor is the advocacy role that PACE has taken in leading the crusade to connect Palestinians with their cultural heritage. The following section illustrates the novel approach of the CultureBank in Mali in altering public opinion and habits conceming the protection of cultural heritage. C. Banking on Culture in Mali The demand for artifacts from Africa is not a new phenomenon-it began in eamest with early colonial contact and continues to the present day (Schmidt and Mclntosh 1996). One need only look at the va1ious auction catalogues to see that ethnographic and archaeological material from Africa is considered an extremely desirable class of material culture to collect. Material from the Dogon region in Mali is among the most highly sought, as is apparent by the looter's trenches and holes pock marking the country's landscape (Sanogo 1999). According to Sanogo (1999: 22), looting in Mali has traditionally taken on two forms. The first is collection of artifacts from the 285 This type ofjoumey was confi1med on one occasion when I accompanied Dr. Yahya from Ramallah to Hebron to visit a glass factory, which also produces archaeological replicas. We left Ramallah about I O:OOam and after passing through four Israeli checkpoints we finally arrived in Hebron at I: 15pm. At one checkpoint I was asked to move to the front of the van and wave my American passpm1 to ensure that we were not sent back to Ramallah. 222 surface, usually the purview of women and children seeking ceramics, jewellery, and stone grinders, once for private consumption but now for the tourist market. The second is full-scale illegal excavation, which is occurring extensively across the country. Artifacts recovered from these activities are sold directly to tourists or to local middlemen who sell to dealers in the larger cities (Sanogo 1999). A recent study reports that 45% of the 834 registered archaeological sites have been looted on some level (Brent 1994). The looting of Mali has been likened to a cultural genocide (Bedaux and Rowlands 2001). The CultureBank (see Figure 8.7) was established in response to the growing loss of the community's material cultural heritage through illegal excavation and the subsequent sale of artifacts. The CultureBank has three main functions: community museum, microfinancing institution, and educational centre. Through this initiative the inhabitants of Fombori in n011heastem Mali and the sunounding areas who have cultural items in their possession are eligible for small business loans -over a four to six month period at 3% interest per month- after depositing their objects in the local community museum (Deubel 2005). A historical documentation process determines the value of the object, which establishes the amount of loan. A questionnaire is completed for each mtifact (ethnographic or archaeological) and is assessed by the loan manager according to a set formula? 86 286 As patt of the hist01ical documentation process, the exact find spot of the archaeological item is recorded (if known) for future research purposes . 223 Figure 8.7 The CultureBank, Fombori, Mali (Image courtesy of Tara Deubel). In this way, individual owners use their cultural heritage as collateral in exchange for currency, which they use to buy grain, livestock, implements, and the like. Owners in good standing- that is those who have repaid their loans in a timely fashion -can opt to renew these loans for an equal or greater amount, which ensures access to a steady stream of income regardless of the general economic situation (Deubel 2005). This arrangement allows participants to access increasingly larger loans, in sharp contrast to the one-time I profit realised by selling artifacts to tourists or to middlemen in the capital, Bamako and other larger cities. At no time in the process does the individual relinquish ownership of the artifact; even if the participant defaults on the loan; the artifact cannot be sold or exchanged and must remain part of the museum's permanent collection (Deubel 2005). Between 1997 and 2002, the CultureBank granted 451 loans - at an average of US $22 per loan- to approximately seventy borrowers (60% of who were women), indicating renewed loans to the same individuals. The rate of repayment is an extraordinary 94% 224 with women consistently repaying at a higher rate than men (Deubel and Baro 2002)?87 In total, the CultureBank has provided US $14,279 worth of loan funds to the community since 1997 (Deubel 2005). As a result of the rnicrocredit program, the community museum in Fombori has amassed an impressive collection of material, including archaeological artifacts, gourds, household objects, jewellery, masks, pottery, weapomy, and wooden statues (see Figure 8.8 for a graphic depiction of the types of attifacts in the CultureBank). CultureBank Figure 8.8 Types of Attifacts in the CultureBank (adapted from Deubel and Baro 2002). At the museum, tourists and local inhabitants alike can engage with the history, significance, and meaning of the past through cultural objects. Meeting the objective to serve as an education centre, the museum sponsors a series of community activities including artisan and conservation workshops, community festivals, historical research, literacy classes, and theatre performances. These activities serve as catalysts in encouraging cultural heritage protection and establishing closer ties between Fombori and the smmunding areas, thereby increasing what Deubel (2005) refers to as increased social 287 These are the latest available figures for study, part of the assessment of the CultureBank program canied out by Tara Deubel and Mamadu Baro of the University of Arizona (see Deubel and Baro 2002). I am grateful to Tara Deubel for supplying inf01mation and for a lively em ail exchange on the subject of the CultureBank concept in general. 225 . capital. The CultureBank attracts people from smTounding villages, helping to establish new social networks, expanding the sphere of interaction, and enhancing business opportunities. At the same time·, the museum outreach programs educate the population on the importance of archaeological site conservation, while actively discouraging the looting of archaeological sites and the sale of cultural items. One of the key objectives of the museum is to function as a living museum, encouraging local inhabitants to remove their objects temporarily for use in festivals and community events. Another of the museum's functions is as tourist attraction- drawing in visitors and generating income. Between 1997 and 2002, over 2000 tourists visited the museum where they spent money on admission, on buying local mts and crafts, and archaeological replicas in the gift shop, as well as taking tours to the nearby Tellem cliff dwellings, providing additional employment opportunities for the local residents of Fombori (Deubel and Baro 2002). In the summer of 2002, an independent assessment of the CultureBank program was conducted in order to "evaluate and assess the socio-economic impacts of the CultureBank in Fombori" (for the full assessment see Deubel and Baro 2002). A series of interviews relating to the social, economic, and cultural impacts of the CultureBank on the Fombori area led the assessors to conclude that "overall the CultureBank has contributed to a greater sense of cultural pride and awareness of the need to protect and conserve the local heritage on the patt of community members" (Deubel and Baro 2002). They were also able to determine that access to monetary loans allowed for greater diversification in the local economy, making the inhabitants less reliant on subsistence agricultme and less susceptible to the vagaries of nature. What this study did not reveal was whether looting had lessened as a result of the CultureBank or whether inhabitants- adherents of Islam and no longer connected to the material remains of the local Dogon culture- are still actively engaged in the illicit excavation of archaeological sites, perhaps even in order to gain access to loans from the CultureBank. The study does not address issues of assigning "value" to mtifacts and the consequences of such an action. By equating an object with a monetary value- in this instance in the fmm of a loan- the commodification of the object is ce1tain. This process of commodification, through establishment of a price agreed upon between the owner and the CultureBank, means that the object is no longer intended for personal consumption but rather for sale or exchange as an economic commodity (Zuniga 1999). Once removed from the CultureBank, can the object go back to being a cultural item or does it retain its economic value, perhaps enhanced by its use as collateral in the CultureBank? Ultimately, the question remains: is the CultureBank buy back program a panacea for looting, or does this initiative actually encourage further archaeological site destmction? This is yet to be studied. What is obvious from each of these case studies and from the examination of the situation in the P A and Israel is that a greater connection to past by the local inhabitants is cmcial in order to foster their respect and active role in protecting their cultural resources. Unfmtunately, the answers are not provided here as fmther study is needed in order to determine the efficacy of initiatives like the CultureBank and the PACE community action program in protecting against archaeological site destmction and promoting cultural tourism and awareness. IV. CONCLUSION The future directions for research discussed in this chapter are as varied (buy back programs, community action plans, and archaeological advocacy) as the stakeholders in the network of trade in antiquities. Can any or all of them work? There are too many unanswered questions sutTounding the efficacy of the buy back program in Mali to determine whether providing a cash or microcredit incentive actually works as a detetTent to looting. Rendering the collecting ofunprovenienced material as an anti-social behaviour has yet to be tested as an effective mechanism in lessening archaeological site destruction. Providing alternative economic opportunities and financial incentives for those engaged in looting appear to be key components to combating illegal excavation in the archaeologically-rich areas . The effectiveness of this type of counte1measure is patently evident in the case study ofPACE's community action programs in the PA. Inhabitants of Beitin and el-Jib no longer loot the local sites for archaeological material now that they have an economic alternative in the fmm of tourism. The locals actively protect the area realising the future earning potential of visitors to the archaeological sites 227 · According to O'Keefe (1997: 89) "education and publicity must cover all States affected and all levels of society." Each of the stakeholder groups in this debate (dealers, museum professionals, collectors, archaeologists, and govemment representatives) has a code of ethics to which members should be held accountable. No single group should be omitted from the advocacy process. Advocacy through the mass media is a powerful tool that should be used in the fight against the plunder of antiquities. Archaeological advocacy is in its infancy but initiatives like SAFE and IARC288 are making headway in the fight to get the collecting public to recognise the causal relationship between the purchase of unprovenienced material and the looting of archaeological sites. As a professional community, we should focus our collective energy on becoming archaeo- lobbyists on behalf of the archaeological landscape, for, if we do not speak for the sites, who will? 288 At the time of writing (Aplil 2006) the future of I ARC is unclear as the McDonald Institute of the University of Cambridge may withdraw its funding of the Centre. IARC is viewed as too proactive and focusing too heavily on the advocacy aspects of these issues rather than "hard scientific inquiry". CHAPTER NINE CONCLUSIONS "People think that there is an illicit market and a legitimate market, in fact, it is the same." [Ricardo Elia quoted in (Meier and Gottlieb 2004)] The aim in writing this thesis has been to examine the idea that a legal market in antiquities can serve as a deterrent to archaeological site destmction, a notion that is challenged thTough analyses of the legal market in Israel using a series of interviews with the various stakeholders involved in the trade. This conclusion contextualises the project within the broader framework of cunent cultural heritage debates between contextualists, cultural nationalists, and those who suppmt the free-market position. I do not have the temerity to suggest that this research can or did affect policy or societal change on any level; these data represent an attempt to begin addressing and confronting the viewpoints of the various stakeholders involved with the legal trade. This chapter revisits the original research questions posited in tllis thesis. I. RESEARCH QUESTIONS This thesis challenges suppositions commonly made concerning the legal market. That task is urgent in a period when the legal market is touted as a panacea to archaeological site destmction. Confronting assumptions and received wisdom is a daunting task, but I hope that the conclusions drawn from this work will go some way to clarifying some misconceptions sunounding issues of demand and the looting of archaeological sites, and the illegal nature of the putative legal trade. In the introduction I state that the primary goal of this thesis is to introduce reliable data to the protracted debate concerning whether or not legally sanctioned antiquities markets can succeed as a solution to the illicit trade in antiquities. As a corollary of this question, I also examine whether a relationship between demand and the looting of archaeological sites can be established for the market in Israel. These questions were investigated through the procurement of qualitative data. The data were acquired through a series of etlmographic 229 interviews with the various interest groups associated with the legal market, and historical and atchival research, which provided the legal precedents for the market, some of the reasons behind the demand for archaeological a1tifacts, and the theoretical underpinnings of the practice of archaeology in the region. A. The Efficacy of the Legally Sanctioned Market in Israel? My analysis clearly indicates that the cmTent manifestation of the legal market of antiquities in Israel contains too many illegal elements that preclude any potential to act as a preventative measure to site looting. The analysis of stakeholder responses to the questions sunounding the success of the Israeli market lead to the conclusion that the cunent licensed trade in antiquities in Israel has too many illegal elements to be considered a successful legal market, essentially it is legal in name only. This research supports Elia's (Meier and Gottlieb 2004) succinct quote introducing this chapter, which highlights one of the misconceptions sunounding the trade in antiquities: that the illicit market and legal market are two distinct entities when in fact they can be the same thing. Inconsistencies in IAA oversight of the dealer registers, forgery of exp011 certificates, and legislative loopholes in the current state laws (AL 1978 and AL 1989, Antiquities Law Amendments 2002) all combine to create illegal elements in an allegedly legal market. From the govemment authorities charged with monitoring the system, to the looters and middlemen procuring material for sale, to the dealers actually selling the a1tifacts, none is satisfied with the cunent mechanism. The collusion of some archaeologists in the valuing and assessing of looted archaeological material for dealers is an additional unsavoury outcome of the quasi-legal market in Israel. The only satisfied group was the collecting community, but their position is based on a sense of entitlement to purchase material rather than the actual mechanism of the market. As I indicated in the discussion of my methodology some stakeholders agreed to pmticipate in the research based on a level of quid pro quo, which did not involve my purchasing antiquities. The dissemination of my research results will hopefully result in an overhaul of the cunent flawed licensing system in Israel, encouraging IAA policy and legislative changes. More consistent monitoring and oversight (bi-monthly) of dealer inventories would ensure greater transparency in record keeping while at the same time 230 lessening the us vs. them atmosphere that currently exists between dealers and the IAA anti-theft unit. Set times for visits would ameliorate feelings of distrust from both parties by ensuring a reliably enforce.d policy, which avoids many of the current strong-a1m techniques employed by the IAA as described my dealers in interviews. Among the legislative changes that might be examined is the omission of AR 1930 A1ticle 4 Section 8: "The licensed dealer shall inform every purchaser of antiquities that it is necessary to obtain a permit to export antiquities and shall exhibit prominently . ' at his place of business, and draw the attention of purchasers to any Notice relating to the exportation of antiquities which the Director of Antiquities may supply for that purpose" from the cun·ent AL 1978 [emphasis mine]. By requiring licensed dealers to provide an export permit for each item they sell the cunent legislative loophole, which allows for the exchange of register numbers and the sale of illegal material, could theoretically be closed. The present research demonstrates that while there may be various factors, which motivate looting, often sites are destroyed in order to gather archaeological material, which primarily feeds the illegal aspects of the market, no matter what the initial impetus of the looters. The case study presented in Chapter 6 -the pathway of the coin- demonstrates that the he1:b selling ladies from Hebron will dig a little deeper and a little longer in order to procure the types of coins sought by the dealers (the unlicensed dealer and the West Jerusalem dealer) to meet the consumer demand. This illegal element of the trade leads to the second element of the original research question- the connection between demand and looting. B. Is There a Connection Between Demand and the Looting of Archaeological Sites? Based on this research I argue that there is a relationship between the looting of sites and thefts from museums and private collections and the demand for artifacts: the demand for archaeological artifacts in the marketplace results in the looting of archaeological sites. Examples such as the case study of the Bar Kokhba coin (Chapter 6), and testimony from archaeologists, dealers, and govemment employees, clearly illustrate the link between consumer demand for archaeological material and the supply chain supported by the looting of archaeological sites. 231 These results raise the question of whether the legal market in Israel can ever be a successful detenent to looting. Consensus among the various interest groups, in particular the communities of dealers and. collectors would argue ' yes' , but only with greater oversight by the IAA. Sixty-eight percent of those interviewed agreed with a legal trade, although many of those respondents felt that a state sponsored sale should replace the current manifestation. The proposition of the IAA selling sherds or even redundant cultural heritage became a de facto research question during the interview process. Many stakeholders, save the dealers and the majority of government employees, felt that with the IAA in charge of all sales, the illegal elements of the trade (the movement of illicitly excavated artifacts, falsified register numbers, and export permits) would be theoretically eliminated. Supporters of this scheme believe that the average tourist would prefer to purchase their memento from the state rather than from a shady back alley dealer in the Old City of Jemsalem, a sentiment echoed by some of the collectors interviewed. Collectors suggested they would be content with a state sponsored sale (no licensing of private dealers) so long as the market was perceived of as authentic289 and easily accessible. Qualitative data gathered during the course of this project indicates that with stricter laws, greater oversight, closer scmtiny of dealer inventories and registers, policing of archaeological sites under tlu-eat, more control at border crossings, a more ethical consumer base - one that refuses to purchase unprovenienced artifacts- and a steady influx of chance finds and deaccessioned material, a fully monitored market may have the potential to succeed as a detenent to looting. But can such utopian conditions exist? Such a proposition- that a legal can act as a deterrent to looting- is predicated on a variety of conditions already in place in order to create the ideal legal market. Such an endeavour would require substantial financial resources, which most archaeologically- rich nations do not possess. The free-market position, which asserts that the proceeds from the legal sale of material could be channelled back into archaeological resource protection, is based on the premise that those profiting from the sale of archaeological material are willing to dedicate all or pati of the eamings to archaeology or into the 289 See Chapter 7 for comments on this aspect of the market. monitoring mechanisms necessary to ensure a legal trade. This, in fact, may mn counter to the perceived right to free-enterprise ethos of many pmticipants in the current antiquities trade. In tum this may lead to the conclusion that perhaps a state-sponsored sale is the only type of legal trade that might work effectively to ensure that archaeological site destruction is abated. In this scenario, the state would determine what is 'redundant' and what to sell from their coffers. Governmental archaeological agencies would make decisions regarding what can be sold, where the proceeds of the sale should be directed, and whether particular mtifacts can be exported. Again, this type of sale implies that the demand by the high-end collectors for 'museum-quality' pieces can be met through deaccessioning or chance finds an- unlikely supposition. Given the direct correlation between demand and looting, the only way that the legal market could be a disincentive to looting would be if the material for sale came only from pre-1978 collections, deaccessioned material, chance finds, and redundant mtifacts. Seventy percent of archaeological objects that come onto the market, or that are contained in recently assembled collections, are without any indication ofprovenience (Brodie and Renfrew 2005), a statistic that should be unacceptable in a fully legal market290 . Nothing without provenience29 1 would be permitted in the market and only stringent oversight will ensure this. 11. CONCLUSION In her work with subsistence diggers in Alaska, Julie Hollowell (2006, Hollowell- Zimmer 2003, Hollowell-Zimmer 2004) states that all of the stakeholders in the antiquities trade are held responsible for its cunent state of affairs: collectors are blamed for creating the demand that motivates people to excavate illegally; the market is blamed for tuming mtifacts into commodities with ever-increasing economic value; dealers are blamed for manipulating consumer desire and encouraging specific types of demand; looters are blamed for being poor, ignorant, greedy, corrupt, uneducated, all the while turning a bind eye to the consequences of their actions; and national and international legal systems are blamed for allowing the situation to flourish. We, in the archaeological 290 As opposed to the quasi-legal market that cunently exists in Israel. 29 1 Newly excavated archaeological objects . community can also be held accountable for not galvanizing our collective position and for not taking a stronger stance in the political arena, not lobbying our representatives, and not recognising the roles ou1· own actions and research play in the movement of archaeological material- either legally or illegally. One constant is the plethora of opportunities for illegal aspects to creep into the legal market. Demand for archaeological material increasingly dwarfs the licit supply, raising prices and potential profits, and providing ample motive for criminal involvement. Porous borders, weak states, economically distressed regions and increased globalization all facilitate trafficking. The elimination of lethargy, cmTuption, and connivance from the licit sphere are keys to fighting successfully antiquities theft and smuggling. At the same time, greater attention to the demand side of the equation is required. Given that, there is an increasingly direct link between first world consumption and both disempowe1ment and suffering in the developing world, demand292 should be a focal point of effmts in combating the looting of archaeological sites. As with the diamond trade analogy, collectors (low-end and high-end) should be shamed into not purchasing artifacts without a solid provenience. In Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership, Colin Renfrew puts fmward a similar solution to the illegal trade. of antiquities and archaeological site destmction: persuading private collectors and museums that, if they really respect and value the past, they should never purchase unprovenienced antiquities (Renfrew 2000b:90-91). Renfrew (2000b) calls for transparency, accountability, and regulation. Neve11heless, these effmts will only succeed by reshaping cultural nmms and the acceptance of responsibility by those whose decisions shape corporate behaviour. To this I would add a need for advocacy, calling on colleagues, peers, local and national museums, and all those concerned with the destmction of the global cultural heritage to lobby their relevant governments, to testify before panels, to disseminate infmmation on the looting of sites, working together to create a greater global awareness of this issue. Let us hope that it does not take another cultural heritage catastrophe like the looting of the Iraq Museum and Archives to muster our forces in one voice against the destmction of our archaeological legacy. 292 Demand for archaeological matetial occurs with greater frequency in the more developed world . 234 To return to the region of study and the case of the Bar Kokhba coin, each stakeholder in the artifact's pathway believes that they have an inherent right to that artifact. The women from Hebron may have no perceived cultural affinity to the Bar Kokhba coin, but they recognise that dealers will pay for the coins they find. Perhaps the women believe, as the subsistence looters in the Gambrel area of Alaska believe - that the mtifacts were left by ancestors in order to provide assistance in times of economic need. Dealers believe they are making people happy by providing them with a piece of the Holy Land to take home and by providing the women from Hebron some added income. The dealers in Jerusalem are meeting demand by providing a service: locals want ancient mtifacts for a wide variety of reasons, as do the tourists who see that it is legal to buy artifacts in Israel. Consumers who want to take home a memento of their visit to the area that will complement their coin collection feel a sense of entitlement as they purchase the Bar Kokhba coin. Museums and institutions with educational mandates have a stake in purchasing mtifacts, increasing their collections for the purposes of study and edification. The IAA and the PA DOA are both trying to protect the past for the future benefit of the respective states. International organisations like UNESCO, ICOM and ICOMOS are also stakeholders and there are certainly others. Legal or illegal, all stakeholders in the licensed trade in antiquities in Israel have competing claims to the area's cultural heritage. Most would agree that the destruction of archaeological sites is a devastating loss to science and the advancement of human knowledge. Reconciling these claims is a Herculean task, one cmTently under consideration by the relevant organisations in Israel and the P A. In order for any counte1measure to work, the vario~s stakeholders need to anive at a compromise where the essential goal is to lessen archaeological site destruction because of looting. 235 ' PRIMARY SOURCES 51h Draft Cultural and Natural Heritage Law, 2003 (Palestine). Antiquities Authority Law 5749-1989 (Israel). Antiquities Law 573 8-1978 (Israel). Antiquities Law Amendments, 2002 (Amendments to the 5738-1978 law) (Israel). Antiquities Ordinance 1920 (British Mandate). Antiquities Ordinance No. 51, 1929 (British Mandate). Antiquities Rules of 1930 (British Mandate). Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts Inc. 717 F. Supp. 1374 (S.D. Ind. 1989). Affitmed 917 F. 2d 278 (ih Cir. 1990) (United States). Bonnichsen, et al. v. United States, et al. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2004 357 F.3d 962 (United States). Committee on the Export of Works of Art, Waverley Report (1952). The Export of Works of Art, etc. Report of a Committee appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. London: HMSO (United Kingdom). Convention on Culturai'Property Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2613 (Supp. V. 1983) (United States). Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. United Kingdom: The Stationery Office Limited, 2003 (United Kingdom). Egyptian Law of Antiquities of 1912 (Egypt). Egyptian Law No. 117 of 1983 (Law on the Protection of Antiquities) (Egypt). European Union Council Regulation No. 3911/92 of December 9, 1992 On the Export of Cultural Goods (Europe). European Union Council Directive 93/7/EEC: (Europe). Federal Assembly of the Swiss Confederation. Federal Act on the Intemational Transfer of Cultural Property. Geneva: Switzerland, 2003 (Switzerland). Impmt, Expmt and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939 (United Kingdom). Intemational Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of Professional Ethics of 1986. Israeli Military Order no. 462, 1973 (Israel). 236 Israeli Military Order no. 1166, 1986 (Israel) . Jordanian Provisional Law No. 12, 1976 (Jordan). Jordanian Antiquities Law No. 21, 1988 (Jordan) . Law of Antiquities, Provisional Law No. 51 , 1996 (Jordan). Macalister Archaeology Files (Ottoman Law 1884 PEF/DA/MAC/399/9). Palestine Exploration Fund Archives (London, England). Mandate ATQ Files (administrative files) . Israel Antiquities Authority Archives (Jerusalem, Israel). National Stolen Property Act, 18 U.S.C §§ 2314-2315 (United States). Ottoman Antiquities Law of 1884 (Ottoman Empire- Turkey) . The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, May 14, 1954. Treasure Act of 1996. United Kingdom: The Stationery Office Limited, 1996 (United Kingdom). United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer ofOwnership ofCultural Prope1iy, November 14, 1970 (823 U.N.T.S. 231 (1972)). United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property, 1999. United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Recommendation Concerning the International Exchange of Cultural Propetiy (1976). SECONDARY SOURCES Aarons, L. 1982. The Dayan Saga. The Man and His Collection. Biblical Archaeological Review September/October:26-30, 36. Abu El-Haj, N. 1998. Translating Tmths: Nationalism, the Practice of Archaeology, and the Remaking of the Past and Present in Contemporary Jemsalem. American Ethnologist 25:166-88. -. 2001. Facts on the Ground. Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Adomo, T. W. 1991. The Culture Industly. London: Routledge. Agar, M. 1980. The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. New York: Academic Press. Akin, M. 1996. "Passionate Possession: The Fmmation ofthe Private Collector," in Learningfrom Things: Method and Theory of Material Culture Studies. Edited by D. Kingery, pp. 102-128. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. Alder, C., and K. Polk. 2002. Stopping This Awful Business: The Illicit Traffic in Anti qui ties Examined as a Criminal Market. Art, Antiquity and the Law 7: 1-19. Anderson, M. L. 1996. 11 Alt Market Challenges for American Museums,,; in Legal Aspects of International Trade in Art, vol. V, International Sales of Works of Art. Edited by M. Briat and J. A. Freedberg, pp. 121- 124. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Anemon, P. 2005. "Network." Edited by R. Apostolides. Athens: Decke11 Distribution. Anonymous. 2003. "Jordan Seizes Smuggled Iraqi Artefacts, Official Says," in Deutsc~e Presse-Agentur, online edition, November 23, 2003, Ge1many. -. 2005. Scroll Fight: Israel Antiquities Authority versus Academia. Eretz Magazine, November, 2005, http://www.eretz.com/NEW/Eshel.shtml/. Appadurai, A. 1986. "Introduction: commodities and the politics of value," in The Social Life of Things. COJ1tnwdities in Cultural Perspective. Edited by A. Appadurai, pp. 3-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aristides, N . 1988. Calm and Uncollected. American Scholar 57:327-36. SECONDARY SOURCES Aarons, L. 1982. The Dayan Saga. The Man and His Collection. Biblical Archaeological Review September/October:26-30, 36. Abu El-Haj, N. 1998. Translating Truths: Nationalism, the Practice of Archaeology, and the Remaking of the Past and Present in Contemporary Jemsalem. American Ethnologist 25 : 166-88. -. 2001. Facts on the Ground. Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Adomo, T. W. 1991. The Culture IndustlJl. London: Routledge. Agar, M. 1980. The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. New York: Academic Press. Akin, M. 1996. "Passionate Possession: The Fmmation of the Private Collector," in Learning from Things: Method and Theory of Material Culture Studies. Edited by D. Kingery, pp. 102-128. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. Alder, C., and K. Polk. 2002. Stopping This Awful Business: The Illicit Traffic in Antiquities Examined as a Criminal Market. Art, Antiquity and the Law 7:1-19. Anderson, M. L. 1996. "Ati Market Challenges for American Museums," in Legal Aspects of International Trade in Art, vol. V, International Sales of Works of Art. Edited by M. Briat and J. A. Freedberg, pp. 121- 124. The Hague: Kluwer Law Intemational. Anemon, P. 2005. "Network." Edited by R. Apostolides. Athens: Decke1i Distribution. Anonymous. 2003. "Jordan Seizes Smuggled Iraqi Aliefacts, Official Says," in Deutscl~e Presse-Agentur, online edition, November 23, 2003, Ge1many. -. 2005. Scroll Fight: Israel Antiquities Authmity versus Academia. Eretz Magazine, November, 2005, http: //www.eretz.com/NEW/Eshel.shtml/. Appadurai, A. 1986. "Introduction: commodities and the politics of value," in The Social Life ofThings. Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Edited by A. Appadurai, pp. 3-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alistides, N. 1988. Calm and Uncollected. American Scholar 57:327-36. Atwood, R. 2004. Stealing History. Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of Ancient World. New York: St. Mmtin's Press. Axarlis, N. 2001. "Corinth Antiquities Retumed," in Archaeology, online edition, February 6, 2001. Axtrnan, K. 2002. "Archaeological Looting: US Gets Tougher on Lucrative Crime," in Christian Science Monitor, June 16, 2002. Baekeland, F. 1981. Psychological Aspects of A1t Collecting. Psychiat1y 44:45-59. Bal, M. 1994. "Telling Objects: A Nanative Perspective on Collecting," in The Cultures of Collecting. Edited by R. Cardinal, pp. 97-115. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Bar Ilan University. 2005. "Shlomo Moussaieff Centre for Research in Kabalah," Bar Ilan University, http: //www.biu.ac.il/HU/moussaieff-center.html. Barkan, E. 2002. "Amending Historical Injustices: The Restitution of Cultural Prope1ty- An Overview," in Claiming the Stones, Naming the Bones. Cultural Property and the Negotiation of National and Ethnic Identity . Edited by E. Barkan and R. Bush, pp. 16-46. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute. Bm·kat, A. 2003. "Antiquities Authority Considers Trading Finds on Open Market," in Haaretz. October 5;--2003, Jerusalem. - . 2005. "Bar Ilan Delays Archaeology Meeting to Protest IAA Complaint," in Haaretz . December 7, 2005, Jerusalem. Bar-Yosef, 0 ., and A. Mazar. 1982. Israeli Archaeology. World Archaeology 13:310-325. Bator, P. 1983. The International Trade in Art. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press . Baudrillard, J. 1981. For a Political Economy of the Sign. St. Louis, MO: Telos. -. 1994. "The System of Collecting," in The Cultures of Collecting. Edited by R. Cardinal, pp. 7-24. Camb1idge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bedaux, R. M. A., and M. Rowlands. 2001. The Future of Mali's Past. Antiquity 75:872- 876. Belk, R. W. 1990. The Role ofPossessions in Constructing and Maintaining a Sense of Past. Advances in Consumer Research 17:669-676. - . 1991 . The Ineluctable Mysteries of Possessions. The Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality 6:17-55 . 239 -. 1995a. Collecting as Luxury Consumption - Effects on Individuals and Households. Journal of Economic Psychology 16:477-490. -. 1995b. Collecting in a Consumer Society. Collecting Cultures. London: Routledge. Belk, R. W., J. Sherry, M. Wallendorf, and M. B. Holbrook. 1991. "Collecting in a Consumer Culture," in Highways and Buyways: Naturalistic Research from The Consumer Behavior Odyssey. Edited by R. W. Belk, pp. 178-215. Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research. Belk, R. W., and S. Wallendorf. 1997. "Of Mice and Men: Gender Identity in Collecting," in l11e Material Culture of Gender, the Gender of Material Culture. Edited by K. L. Ames, pp. 7-26. Winterthur DE: Hemy Francis du Pant Winterthur Museum. Ben-Ezer, E. 1997. Courage. The Story ofMoshe Dayan. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defence. Bengs, B. 1996. Dead on Anival? A Comparison of the Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Expmied Cultural Objects and US Propetiy Law. Transnational Law & Contemporwy Problems 6:503-535. Benjamin, W. 1973 . Illuminations. New York: Collins/Fontana Books. Bentwich, N. 1921-1922. Mandated Tenitories: Palestine and Mesopotamia (Iraq). British Year Book of International Law 2:48-56. Betman, S. 1987. Antiquities in Israel in a Maze of Controversy. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 19:343-360. Bemal, M. 1987. Black Athena: The Afrosiatic Roots of Classical Civilization 1: The Fabrications of Ancient Greece 1795-1985. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Bemick, L. 1998. Ati and Antiquities Theft. Transnational Organized Crime 4:91-116. Beneman, G. D. 1991. "Anthropological Ethics in the 1980s: A Positive Approach," in Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology: A Dialogue for a New Era. Edited by C. Fleuhr-Lobban, pp. 36-71. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bestor, T. C. 2001. Supply-Side Sushi: Commodity, Market, and the Global City. American Anthropologist 103:76-95. Biran, A. 1999. "Interview on Israel Antiquities Legislation." Edited by M. M. Kersel. Jerusalem, Israel. 240 Bliss, F. 1906. The Development of Palestine Exploration. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Blum, 0. 2001. The Illicit Alltiquities Trade- An Analysis of Current Antiquities Looting in Israel. Master, Sotheby's Institute. Boardman, J. 1994. "Foreword," in In Pursuit of the Absolute Art of the Ancient World: The George Ortiz Collection. London: Royal Academy of the A1ts. Bogdan, R., and S. Taylor. 1975. Introduction to Qualitcltive Research Methods: A Phenomenological Approach to the Social Sciences. New York: Willey. Bogdanos, M. 2005a. The Casualties of War: The Tmth About the Iraq Museum. American Journal of Archaeology 109:477-526. -,. 2005b. "The Ten·orist in the Art Gallery," in New York Times, December 14, 2005, pp. 15. New York. -. 2005c. Thieves of Baghdad. New York: Bloomsbury. Bordkey, A. K. 1996. "Licit Trade in Works of Alt: Export Licensing Regulations in Austria," in Legal Aspects of International Trade in Art, vol. V, International Sales of Works of Art. Edited by M. Briat and J. A. Freedberg, pp. 135- 137. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Borodkin, L. 1995. The Economics of Antiquities Looting and a Proposed Legal Alternative. Columbia Law Review 95:377-417. Borowski, E. 1979. "Preface," in Ladders to Heaven. Art Treasures from the Lands of the Bible. Edited by 0. W. Muscarella. Toronto: McClelland and Stewmt. -. 1995. "Introduction to the History of the Seal Collection of the Bible Lands Museum, Jemsalem," in Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East, Proceedings of the Symposium Held on September 2, 1993, Jerusalem, Israel. Edited by J. G. Westenholz, pp. 11-22. Jemsalem: Bible Lands Museum. -. 2005. "The Bible Lands Museum- The Dream," The Bible Lands Museum, http://www. blmj .org/TheDream/TheDream.html/. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 241 Bowler, I. 1997. "Problems with Interviewing: Experiences with Service Providers and Clients," in Context and Method in Qualitative Research. Edited by G. Miller and R. Dingwall, pp. 66-76. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Boyd, A. 1994. The Raiders of Angkor Wat. World Press Review 41:48-56. Brawer, A. 1965. "From the Early Days of the Israel Exploration Society," in Western Galilee and the Coast ofGalilee. Edited by J. Aviram. Jemsalem: Israel Exploration Society. Brent, M. 1994. The Rape of Mali. Archaeology 47:26-35. Brodie, N. 1998a. "The Antiquities Trade in the United Kingdom - Recent Developments." World Archaeological Intercongress, Croatia, 1998a. - . 1998b. Pity the Poor Middlemen. Culture without Context Autumn:7-9. - . 2002. "Britannia Waives the Rules? Licensing of Archaeological Material for Expmt from the UK," in Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology. Edited by K. W. Tubb, pp. 185-204. New York: Routledge. - . 2003 . Stolen History: Looting and Illicit Trade. Museum International55 :10-22. - . 2004. "Export Deregulation and the Illicit Trade in Archaeological Material," in Legal Perspectives on Cultural Resources, Heritage Resources Management Series. Edited by J. R. Richman and M. P. Forsyth, pp. 85-99. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. -. 2005. Historical and Social Perspectives on the Regulation of the International Trade in Archaeological Objects: The Examples of Greece and India. Vanderbilt Journal ofTransnational Law 38:1051-1066. -. fmthcoming. "The Plunder of Iraq's Archaeological Heritage 1991-2005 and the London Antiquities Trade," in Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and the Antiquities Trade. Edited by N. Brodie, M. M. Kersel, C. Luke, and K. Walker Tubb. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Brodie, N., and J. Doole. 2001. "Illicit Antiquities," in Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The Destruction of the World's Archaeological Heritage, McDonald Institute Monographs. Edited by N. Brodie, J. Doole, and C. Renfrew, pp. 1-6. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Brodie, N., J. Doole, and C. Renfrew. Editors. 2001. Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The Destruction of the World's Archaeological Heritage. McDonald Institute Monograph. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Brodie, N., J. Doole, and P. Watson. 2000. Stealing Hist01y: The Illicit Trade in Cultural Material. London: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Brodie, N., M. M. Kersel, C. Luke, and K. Walker Tubb. Editors. fmthcoming. Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and the Antiquities Trade. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Brodie, N ., and C. Renfrew. 2005 . Looting and the World's Archaeological Heritage: The Inadequate Response. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:343-361. Brodie, N., and K. W. Tubb. Editors. 2002. Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extension of Archaeology. New York: Routledge. Cantwell, A.-M. 2000. ""Who Knows the Power of His Bones" Reburial Redux," in Ethics and Anthropology, vol. 925, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, pp. 79-119. Caporale, V. 1979. "Introduction," in Art Treasures from the Lands of the Bible. Edited by 0. W. Muscarella. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Carpenter, E. 1973. Oh, What a Blow That Phantom Gave Me! New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Cavanaugh, K. 2002-2003. Selective Justice: The Case of Israel and the Occupied Territories. Fordham International Law Journal26:934-960 . Chambers, E. 2000. "Applied Ethnography," in Handbook of Qualitative Research, Second Edition. Edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, pp. 851-869. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chippindale, C., and D. Gill. 2000. Material Consequences of Contemporary Classical Collecting. American Journal of Archaeology 104:463-511. Church, J. 1992. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Foreign Laws on National Ownership of Cultural Property in U.S. Comts. Columbia Journal ofTransnational Law 30:179-231. Clifford, J. 1985. "Objects and Selves- An Afte1word," in Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture, vol. 3, History of Anthropology. Edited by G. W. J. Stocking, pp. 236-246·. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press. -. 1988. The Predicament of Culture. Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art, 7th printing edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. -. 1994. "Collecting Ourselves," in Interpreting Objects and Collections, Leicester Readers in Museum Studies. Edited by S. M. Pearce, pp. 258-268. London: Routledge. Cobbing, F., and J. Tubb. 2005. "Before the Rockefeller: the First Palestine Museum in Jerusalem," in Tutela, Conservazione e Valorizzazione Del Patrimonio Culturale Della Palestina, Mediterraneum. Edited by F. Maniscalco, pp. 69-79. Napoli, Italy: Massa Editore. Codet, H. 1921. Essai sur le Collectionisme. Paris. Coe, M. 1993. "From Huaquero to Connoisseur: The Early Market in Pre-Columbian Ali," in Collecting the Pre-Columbian Past: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, October 1990. Edited by E. Boone, pp. 271-290. Washington DC: Dumbmton Oaks Research Library and Collections. Coffey, A. 1999. The Ethnographic Self Fieldwork and the Representation of Identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Coggins, C. 1969. Illicit Traffic ofPre-Columbian Antiquities. Art Journal29:94-98. -. 1972. At·chaeology and the Art Market. Science 175:263-266. Cohen, E. 1988. Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism. Annals ofTourism Research 15:376-386. Collin, R. 1993. The Law and Stolen A1i, Artifacts, and Antiquities . Howard Law Journal36: 17-42. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. 2004. Those Obscure Objects of Desire. Collecting Cultures and the Al·chaeological Landscape in the San Pedro Valley of Arizona. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 3 3:571-601 . Danet, B., and T. Katriel. 1989. No Two Alike: Play and Aesthetics in Collecting. Play and Culture 2:253-277. 244 . -. 1994. "Glorious Obsessions, Passionate Lovers, and Hidden Treasures: Collecting, Metaphor, and the Romantic Ethic," in The Socialness of Things. Essays on the Socio-Semiotics of Objects, vol. 115, Approaches to Semiotics. Edited by S. H. Riggins, pp. 23-61. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dayan, M. 1978. Living With the Bible. New York: William Monow. Dayan, S. 1991. "Grandmother Kissed Him, but the Distance Between Them did not Sh01ten.," in Ma'ariv, September 21, 1991, Jerusalem (Hebrew). de Montebello, P. 1990. "Foreword," in Glories of the Past. Ancient Art from the Shelby White and Lean Levy Collection. Edited by D. V. Bothmer. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. deManais, K. 2003. "Qualitative Interview Studies: Learning Through Experience," in Foundations of Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social Sciences. Edited by K. deMan·ais and S. Lapan. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaun Associates. Deubel, T. 2005. "Banking on Culture: Microcredit as Incentive for Cultural Conservation in Mali," in Microfinance: Perils and Prospects. Edited by J. Femando. London: Routledge. Deubel, T., and M. Baro. 2002. Conserving Cultural Heritage with Microcredit: An Impact Assessment of the CultureBank in Fombori, Mali. Report for the African Cultural Conservation Fund, December 15, 2002. Deutsch, R. Editor. 2003. Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology in Ho nor of Shlomo Moussaieff Tel A viv: Archaeological Center Publications. -. 2004. "Interview about Shlomo Moussaieff." Edited by M. M. Kersel. Jaffa, Israel. Dominguez, V. 1986. The Marketing of Heritage. American Ethnologist 13:546-555. Dorfman, J. 1998. Getting Their Hands Di1ty? Archaeologists and the Looting Trade. Lingua Franca May/June:29-36. Dothan, T. 2004. "Interview about Moshe Dayan." Edited by M. Kersel. Jerusalem. Douglas, M., and B. Ishe1wood. 1996 (1979). The World of Goods. Towards and Anthropology of Consumption, 2nd edition 1996 edition. New York: Routledge. 245 Dwyer, E. 1996. "Critical Comments on the Draft Principles to Govern a Licit Intetnational Traffic in Cultural Prope11y," in Legal Aspects of International Trade in Art, vol. V, jnternational Sales of Works of Art. Edited by M. Briat and J. A. Freedberg, pp. 105-108. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Eakin, H., and E. Povoledo. 2006. "Met Tmstee Seen as Set for Talks with Italy," in New York Times, Febmary 22, 2006, New York. Early, G. 1998. Adventures in the Colored Museum: Afrocentricism, Memory, and the Constmction of Race. American Anthropologist 100:703-711. Eccels, L. 1968. On Collecting. London: Longmans, Green and C. Ltd. Ede, J. 1996. "The Antiquities Trade: Towards a More Balanced View," in Legal Aspects of International Trade in Art, vol. V, International Sales of Works of Art. Edited by M. Briat and J. A. Freedberg, pp. 69-71. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. -. 2000. The Good Collector. A Contribution to the Fomm debate launched in the first issue of Public Archaeology. Public Archaeology 1 :222-223. Elu-lich, M., and S. Zebaida. 2003. Curator of the Garden of Eden. The Jerusalem Report November 17:118-119,122. Eisenberg, J. 1994. Editorial. Minerva 5:2. El Hafi, N. 2004. "Palestine's Archaeology: How to Promote One's Own Political Agenda," in Our Precious Past. Sharing Responsibility for our Archaeological Heritage. Edited by D. Barrowclough, pp. 81-99. Cambridge, UK: Red Dagger Press. Elia, R. 2001. "Analysis of Looting, Selling and Collecting of Apulian Red-Figure Vases: A Quantitative Approach," in Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The Destruction of the World's Archaeological Heritage, McDonald Institute Monographs. Edited by N. Brodie, J. Doole, and C. Renfrew, pp. 145-153. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Ellen, R. 1988. Fetishism .. Man 23:213-235. Elon, A. 1994. "Politics and Archaeology," in The New York Review, vol. 41, pp. 14-17. 246 Elyachar, J. 2005. Markets of Dispossession. NGOs, Economic Development, and the State in Cairo. Politics, Hist01y, and Culture. Dmham, NC: Duke University Press. Ephron, D. 2001. "The Tomb Raiders," in Newsweek, June 18, 2002, pp. 38. Escobar, A. 1991. Anthropology and the Development Encounter: The Making and Marketing of Development Anthropology. American Ethnologist 18:658-682. Feige, M. 2001. "Identity, Ritual, and Pilgrimage: The Meetings of the Israeli Exploration Society," in Divergent Jewish Cultures. Israel and America. Edited by D. Dash Moore and S. Ilan Troen, pp. 87-106. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. Feldinger, L. G. 2004. "In the Company of Grave Robbers," in The Jerusalem Post, online edition, July 29, 2004, Jerusalem. Fine, E., and J. Speer. 1985. Tom Guide Performances as Sight Sacralization. Annals of Tourism Research 12:73-95. Formanek, R. 1991. Why They Collect: Collectors Reveal Their Motivations. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality 6:275-286. Freiberg, A. 1997. Regulating Market for Stolen Prope1iy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 30:237-258. French, L. 1999. Hierarchies of Value of Angkor Wat. Ethnos 64:170-191. Freud, S. 1954. Sigmund Freud Letters: The Origins of Psychoanalysis. New York: Basic Books. Ganor, A. 2003. Antiquities Robbery in Israel. Hadashot Arkheologiyot- Excavations and Surveys in Israel115:68-70. Garstang, J. 1922. Eighteen Months Work of the Depmiment of Antiquities for Palestine, July 1920- December 1921. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement April: 58. Gatehouse, J. 2005. Cashbox. Macleans Magazine March 25. Gazin-Schwmiz, A. 2004. "Mementos of the Past: Material Cultme ofTomism at Stonehenge and Avebury," in Marketing Heritage. Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past. Edited by Y. Rowan and U. Baram, pp. 93-102. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Gereffi, G., M. Korzeniewicz, and R. P. Korzeniewicz. 1994. "Introduction: Global Commodity Chains," in Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, vol. 149, Economics and Economi·c History. Edited by G. Gereffi and M. Korzeniewicz, pp. 1-14. London: Greenwood Press. Gerstenblith, P. 2001. The Public Interest in the Restitution of Cultural Objects. Connecticut Journal of International Law 16:197-246. -. 2002. "Cultural Significance and the Kennewick Skeleton: Some Thoughts on the Resolution of Cultural Heritage Disputes," in Claiming the Stones, Naming the Bones. Cultural Property and the Negotiation of National and Ethnic Identity. Edited by E. Barkan and R. Bush, pp. 162-197. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute. -. 2003. The McClain/Schultz doctrine: another step against tr·ade in stolen antiquities. Culture without Context 13. -. 2004a. Art, Cultural Heritage, and the Law. Carolina Academic Press Law Casebook Series. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. -. 2004b. "The Licit and Illicit Trade in Antiquities," in It's Legal but it Ain't Right. Harmful Social Consequences of Legal Industries. Edited by N. Passos and N. Goodwin, pp. 13 8-177. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. -. forthcoming. "Recent United States Legal Developments in the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage," in Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade. Edited by N. Brodie, M. M. Kersel, C. Luke, and K. W. Tubb. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Gibson, S. 1999. British Archaeological Institutions in Mandatory Palestine, 1917-1948. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131:115-143. Gilgan, E. 2001. "Looting and the Market for Maya Objects: A Belizean Perspective," in Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The Destruction of the World's Archaeological Heritage. Edited by N. Brodie, J. Doole, and C. Renfrew, pp. 73-87. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Gill, D., and C. Chippindale. 1993. Material and Intellectual Consequences ofEsteem for Cycladic Figures. American Journal of Archaeology 97:601-659. 248 . Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discove1y of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Global Witness. 2006. "New ·shopping Guide on Conflict Diamonds- Just in Time for Valentine's Day," online edition, February 10, 2006. http://www.globalwitness.org/press_releases/display2.php?id=334. Glock, A. E. 1994. Archaeology as Cultural Survival: the Future of the Palestinian Past. Journal of Palestinian Studies 23:70-84. -. 1995. Cultural Bias in the Archaeology of Palestine. Journal of Palestine Studies 24:48-59. Glueck, N. 1968. Dateline: Jerusalem. A Dimy by Nelson Glueck. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press. Goldin, M. 2004. "Grave Robbers Plunder Antiquities in Holy Land," in Reuters, online edition, December 15, 2004. Gopher, A., R. Greenberg, and Z. Herzog. 2002. "Archaeological Public Policy," in Public Policy in Israel. Perspective and Practices. Edited by D. Kom, pp. 191- 203. New York: Lexington Books. Gm·don, B. 1986. The Souvenir: Messenger of the Extraordinary. Journal of Popular Culture 20:135-146. Goren, Y., A. Ayalon, M. Bar-Matthews, and B. Schilman. 2005. Authenticity Examination of Two Iron Age Ostraca from the Moussaieff Collection. Israel Exploration Journal55:21-34. Gosden, C., and C. Knowles. 2001. Collecting Colonialism. Material Culture and Colonial Change. New York: Berg. Grabum, N., H. H. 1976. Ethnic and Tourist Arts: Cultural Expressions from the Fourth World. Berkeley, CA: University of Califomia Press. Grant, J. A., and I. Taylor. 2004. Global Govemance and Conflict Diamonds: The Kimberley Process and the Quest for Clean Gems. The Round Table 93:385-401. Greenfield, J. 1996. The Return of Cultural Treasures, second edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 249 Gugliotta, G. 2002. "Stone Box May Be Oldest Link to Jesus. Scholar Believes 60 A.D. Relic Authentic," in Washington Post, pp. at AOl. Washington DC: Washington Post. Haas, D. 2005. "A Piece of History: Biblical Scroll Fragments Found in Israel," in Associated Press, July 15, 2005, Jemsalem. Hallote, R. S., and A. H. Joffe. 2002. The Politics of Israeli Archaeology: Between 'Nationalism" and 'Science' in the Age of the Second Republic. Israel Studies 7:84-116. Harnilakis, Y. 1999. Stories From Exile: Fragments From the Cultural Biography of the Parthenon (or "Elgin") Marbles. World Archaeology 31:303-321. Harnilakis, Y., and E. Yalouri. 1996. Antiquities as Symbolic Capital in Modern Greek Society. Antiquity 70: 117-129. Hammersley, M., and P. Atkinson. 1995. Ethnography. Principles in Practice, Second edition. London: Routledge. Handler, R. 1985. "On Having a Culture: Nationalism and Preservation of Quebec's Patrimoine," in Objects and Others. Essays on Museums and Material Culture, vol. 3, History of Anthropology. Edited by G. Stocking, pp. 192-217. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. -. 1991. "Who Owns the Past? History, Cultural Property, and the Logic of Possessive Individualism," in 17te Politics of Culture. Edited by B. Williams, pp. 63-74. Washington DC: Srnithsonian Institution Press. -. 1992. On Valuing of Museum Objects. Museum Anthropology 16:21-28. Haraway, D. 1985. Teddy Bear Pah·iarchy: Taxidermy in the Garden ofEden, New York City, 1908-1936. Social Text Winter:20-63. Heath, D. 1973. Economic Aspects of Commercial Archaeology in Costa Rica. American Antiquity 38:259-265. Heilman, S. 1988. "Jews and Judaica: Who Owns and Buys What?," in Persistence and Flexibility. Anthropological Perspectives in the American Jewish Experience, Anthropology and Judaica. Edited by W. P. Zenner, pp. 260-279: State University of New York Press. Herscher, E. 1987. Antiquities Market. Journal of Field Archaeology 14:213-223. Hicks, J. 1963. A Revision of Demand The01y. Oxford: Oxford University Press. History Channel 2003. "History Matters: Tomb Raiders: Robbing the Dead," in History Matters: The History Channel. Hollowell, J. 2006. "Moral Arguments on Subsistence Digging," in The Ethics of Archaeology. Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice. Edited by C. ScalTe and G. Scan·e, pp. 69-96. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press. Hollowell-Zimmer, J. 2003. "Digging in the Di1t- Ethics and "Low-End Looting"," in Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Edited by L. Zimme1man, K. D. Vitelli, and J. Hollowell-Zimmer, pp. 45-56. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. -. 2004. "Old Things" on the Loose: The Legal Market for Archaeological Materials From Alaska's Bering Strait. PhD, Indiana University. Holstein, J. A., and J. F. Gubrium. 1995. The Active Interview. Vol. 37. Qualitative Research Methods Series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Hopkins, T., and I. Wallerstein. 1986. Commodity Chains in the World-Economy Prior to 1800. Review 10:157-170. Horowitz, J. 2006. "How Hot Vase It?," in The New York Observer, pp. 1. New York. Roving, T. Editor. 1975 ,... The Chase, The Capture: Collecting at the Metropolitan . New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. - . 1993. Making the Mummies Dance: Inside the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Simon & Schuster. Hughes, R. 1987. "How to Start a Museum," in Time, vol. 130, pp. 48-50. Hunt, E. D. 1982. Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire, AD 312-460. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hutt, S. 2004. "Cultural Property Law Theory: A Comparative Assessment of Contemporary Thought," in Legal Perspectives on Cultural Resources, vol. 7, Heritage Resources Management Series. Edited by J. R. Richrnan and M. P. Forsyth, pp. 17-36 .. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. ICOM. 1997. Looting In Angkor. International Council of Museums, in collaboration with l'Ecole francais e d'Extreme-Orient, second edition. Paris: ICOM. 251 Ilan, D., U. Dahari, and G. Avni. 1989. Plundered! The Rampant Rape oflsrael's Archaeological Sites. Biblical Archaeological Review March/ April:38-41. Indo-Asian News Service. 2005 . "Antiquities and Tenorism," in Indo-Asian News Service, online edition, July 27, 2005. Israel Antiquities Authority. 2005. "Policy: Antiquities Robbery and Commerce," online edition, vol. 2005: Israel Antiquities Authority. http://www.antiquities.org.il/modules _ eng.asp?Module _id=24. Jayme, E. 2005. Globalization in Art: Clash of Interests and International Tendencies. Vanderbilt Journal ofTransnational Law 38:927-946. Josipovic, I. 2003. Conflict Diamonds. Not so Clear Cut. Harvard International Review Summer:10-12. Karnil, J. 2005. "Changing Hands," in Al-Ahram Weekly, Issue no. 725 edition. Cairo. Kankpeyeng, B. , and C. DeCm·se. 2004. Ghana's Vanishing Past: Development, Antiquities, and the Destruction of the Archaeological Record. African Archaeological Review 21:89-128. Kaplan, D. E. 2005. "Paying for Tenor," in US. News & World Report, vol. 139, pp. 40. Keck, M., and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kersel, M. M. 2000. We Sell History: Issues in the Illicit Trade of Antiquities and - Cultural Repatriation. Master, The University of Georgia. - . 2004. "The Politics of Playing Fair, or, Who's Losing Their Marbles," in Marketing Heritage. Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past. Edited by Y. Rowan and U. Baram, pp. 41-56. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. -. 2005. "Archaeology's Well Kept Secret: The Managed Antiquities Market," in SOMA 2003: Symposium on Jvfediterranean Archaeology, vol. BAR International Series 1391. Edited by C. Briault, J. Green, A. Kaldelis, and A. Stellatou, pp. 79-83. Oxford: Archaeopress, Publishers of British Archaeological Repmis. Kersel, M. M., and C. Luke. 2003. The Battle for the Past: Comment. Culture without Context Autumn:28-30. -. 2005. Selling a Replicated Past: Power and Identity in Marketing Archaeological Replicas. Anthropology in Action, Journal for Applied Anthropology in Policy and Practice 11:32-43. Keyser, J. 2002. "Holy Land's Ancient Sites Hit by Looting: Archaeologists say Region's Troubles Lead to Desperate Thefts," in The Jerusalem Post, online edition. Kinde1man, S. 1993. Comment: The UNIDROIT Draft Convention on Cultural Objects: An Examination of the Need for a Unifmm Legal Framework for Controlling the Illicit Movement of Cultural Property. Emmy International Law Review 7:457- 584. !Getter, R. 2003. A Very General Archaeologist- Moshe Dayan and Israeli Archaeology. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 4. -. 2005. Just Past? The Making of Israeli Archaeology. London: Equinox Publishing. Kohl, P. L., and C. Fawcett. 1995. Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kozloff, A. P. Editor. 1981. Animals in Ancient Art. From the Leo Mildenberg Collection. Cleveland, OH: Cleveland Museum of Ali in Cooperation with Indiana University Press. -. 2004. "A Peaceable Kingdom. The Leo Mildenberg Collection of Ancient Animals," in Christie's London Auction Catalogue. Edited by Christie's. London: Christie's Auction House. Krech, S. I., and B. Hail. Editors. 1999. Collecting Native America 1870-1960. Washington DC: Srnithsonian Institution Press. Kunitz, M. 2001. Switzerland and the Intemational Trade in Art & Antiquities. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 21:519-542. Lafont, M. 2004. Pillaging Cambodia. The Illicit Traffic in Khmer Art. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. Landesman, P. 2001. The Curse of the Sevso Silver. The Atlantic Monthly November:62- 89. Lawler, A. 2003 . Al·chaeology- Picking Up the Pieces of Iraqi Antiquities. Science 300:559-+. 253 Lazms, P. K. forthcoming. "Supporting and Promoting the Idea of a Shared Cultural Patrimony," in Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade. Edited by N. Brodie, M. M. Kersel, C. Luke, and K. Walker Tubb. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Lefkovits, E. 2005a. "Constmction Workers Held for Antiquities Theft," in The Jerusalem Post, online edition, March 8, 2005, Jemsalem. -. 2005b. "Man Sentenced for 2nd Temple Artifacts Theft," in The Jerusalem Post, online edition, January 27, 2005, Jemsalem. -. 2005c. "Police Probe Leading Archaeologist," in The Jerusalem Post, online edition, November 2, 2005, Jemsalem. Lefkowitz, M., and G. Rogers. 1996. BlackAthena Revisited. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Legon, J. 2002. "Scholars: Oldest Evidence of Jesus?," CNN.com, October 22, 2002. http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/Science/10/21/jesus.box/index.htrnl. Leyden, J. 2005. "Swift-Find: Tenorism Funded by Stolen Propetty," in Israel News Agency, October 16, 2005, Tel Aviv. http://www. israelnewsagency. com/tenorismstol enpropertyswiftfindregistry8 8 81 0 16.htrnl. Lippert, D. 2005. Remembeting Humanity: How to Include Human Values in a Scientific Endeavor. International Journal of Cultural Property 12:275-280. Litvak King, J. 1999. "Cultural Property and National Sovereignty," in The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property: Whose Culture? Whose Property?, Second edition. Edited by P. M. Messenger, pp. 199-208. Albuquerque, NM: University ofNew Mexico Press. Loeb, L. 1978. "Creating Antiques for Fun and Profit: Encounters Between Iranian Jewish Merchants and Touring Coreligionists," in Hosts and Guests. The Anthropology ofTourism. Edited by V. L. Smith, pp. 185-192. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Press. Long, M. M., and L. G. Schiffman. 1997. Swatch fever: An allegory for understanding the paradox of collecting. Psychology & Marketing 14:495-509. Lowenthal, D. 2005. Why Sanctions Seldom Work: Reflections on Cultural Property Internationalism. International Journal of Cultural Property 12:393-423. Luke, C. 2003. Colonial Art Research. US Department of State. Luke, C., and M. Kersel. 2005. A Retrospective and a Look Forward: The Antiquities Market Section. Journal of Field Archaeology 30:191-200. Lunden, S. 2004. "The Scholar and the Art Market. Swedish Scholarly Contributions to the Destmction of the World's Archaeological Heritage," in Swedish Archaeologists on Ethics. Edited by H. Karlsson, pp. 197-247. Lindome: Bricoleur Press. Lyons, C. L. 2002. "Objects and Identities: Claiming and Reclaiming the Past," in Claiming the Stones, Naming the Bones. Cultural Property and the Negotiation of National and Ethnic Identity. Edited by E. Barkan and R. Bush, pp. 116-137. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute. Maanen, J. 1988. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. MacCannell, D. 1973. Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings. American Journal of Sociology 79:589-603. -. 1976. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken. Mackenzie, S. R. M. 2002. Regulating the Market in Illicit Antiquities. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. Australian Institute of Criminology 239. -. 2005. Dig a Bit Deeper. Law, Regulation and the Illicit Antiquities Market. British Journal of Criminology 45:249-268. Magness, J. 2002. The Archaeology ofQumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Magness-Gardiner, B. 2004. "International Conventions and Cultural Heritage Protection," in Marketing Heritage. Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past. Edited by Y. Rowan and U. Baram, pp. 27-40. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Marchand, S. 1996. Down From Olympus. Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Marcus, G. E. 1995. Ethnography In/Of the World System: The Emergence of Multi- Sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:95-117. Marks, P. 1995. "Antiquities Markets Should be Open and Honest," in Wall Street Journal, pp. A15. New York. Martin, P. 1999. Popular Collecting and the Eve1yday Self The Reinvention of Museums. London: Leicester University Press. Marx, K. 1963. Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy. London: Harmondsworth, Penguin. -. 1975 (1844). Karl Marx: Early writings, Original published 1844 edition. New York: Vantage. Maurice, C., and R. Tumor. 1992. The Export Licensing Rules in the United Kingdom and the Waverley Crite1ia. International Journal of Cultural Property 1:273-295. Mauries, P. 2002. Cabinets of Curiosities . London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. Mcintosh, R., and S. K. Mclntosh. 1986. Dilettantism and Plunder- Illicit Traffic in Ancient Malian Art. Museum International149:49-57. Mclntosh, R., T. Togola, and S. Mcintosh. 1995. The Good Collector and the Premise of Mutual Respect Among Nations. African Arts 28:60-69, 110-111. Mclntosh, S. K. 2000. Fmum: The Good Collector: Fabulous Beast or Endangered Species? Public Archaeology 1:73-76. Mcintosh, W. D., and B. Schmeichel. 2004. Collectors and Collecting: A Social Psychological Perspective. Leisure Sciences 26:85-97. Meier, B., and M. Gottlieb. 2004. "Loot: Along the Antiquities Trail; An Illicit Journey Out of Egypt, Only Few Questions Asked," in New York Times, Late edition, Febmary 23, 2004, pp. 1. New York. Menyman, J. H. 1995. The Antiquities Problem. Public Archaeology Review 3:10-11. -. 1996. "A Licit International Trade in Cultural Objects," in Legal Aspects of International Trade in Art, vol. V, International Sales of Works of Art. Edited by M. Briat and J. A. Freedberg, pp. 3-46. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. -. 2004. "A Licit International Trade in Cultural Objects," in Art Market Matters. Edited by T. E. F. A. Foundation, pp. 13-36. Helvoirt, Netherlands: The European Fine Art Foundation (TEFAF) . -. 2005 . Cultural Property Intemationalism. International Journal of Cultural Property 12:11-39. Meskell, L. 1998. "Archaeology Matters," in Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. Edited by L. Meskell, pp. 1-12. London: Routledge. Meyer, K. 1973. The Plundered Past. The Traffic in Art Treasures. New York: Atheneum. Migliore, S. 1991. Treasure Hunting and Pillaging in Sicily: Acquiring a Deviant Identity. Anthropologica XXXIII: 161-75. Monastersky, R. 2002. "Stemming the Flow of Blood Diamonds," in Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 48, pp. A18. Moore, J. 1988. Enforcing Foreign Ownership Claims in the Antiquities Market. Yale Law Journal97:466-487. Moulin, R. 1987. The French Art Market: A Sociological View. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press. Muensterberger, W. 1994. Collecting. An Unruly Passion. Psychological Perspectives, first edition. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Murphy, J. D. 1995. Plunder and Preservation: Cultural Property Law and Practice in the People's Republic of China. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Murphy-O'Connor, J. 1992. The Holy Land. An Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nairn, M. 2005. Illicit. How Smugglers, Traffickers, and Copycats are Hijacking the Global Economy. New York: Doubleday. National Association for the Practice of Anthropology, (NAPA). 1988. "National Association for the Practice of Anthropology Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners," National Association for the Practice of Anthropology. http://www.practicinganthropology.org/about/?section=ethical_guidelines. National Commission on Tenorist Attacks upon the United States. 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report. Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: Norton. 257 ' Niedzielski-Eichner, N. 2005. Art Historians and Cultural Prope1iy Intemationalism. International Journal of Cultural Property 12:183-200. O'Keefe, P. J. 1997. Trade in Antiquities- Reducing Theft and Destruction. London: Archetype Publications. Oldfield, S. 2003. "Introduction," in The Trade in Wildlife. Regulation for Conservation. Edited by S. Oldfield, pp. xvii-xxii. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Olivier, M. 1996. Comment: Unidroit Convention: Attempting to Regulate the Intemational Trade and Traffic of Cultural Prope1iy. Golden Gate University Law Review 26:627-674. Olmsted, A. D. 1991. Collecting- Leisure, Investment or Obsession. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6:287-306. Ortiz, G. 1994. "In Pursuit of the Absolute," in In Pursuit of the Absolute Art of the Ancient World: The George Ortiz Collection. London: Royal Academy of the Arts. Owsley, D. W., and R. L. Jantz. 2002. "Kennewick Man- A Kin? Too Distant," in Claiming the Stones, Naming the Bones. Cultural Property and the Negotiation of National and Ethnic Identity. Edited by E. Barkan and R. Bush, pp. 141-161. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute. Oyediran, J. 1997. Plunder, Destruction and Despoliation: An Analysis of Israel's Violations ofthe International Law of Cultural Property in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Ramallah, Palestine: Al Hag. Palmer, N. 1995. "Recovering Stolen A1i," in Antiquities Trade or Betrayed: Legal, Ethical, and Conservation Issues. Edited by K. W. Tubb, pp. 1-38. London: Archetype. Pearce, S. M. 1995. On Collecting. An Investigation into Collecting in the European Tradition. Collecting Cultures. London: Routledge. Pearlstein, W. 1996. Claims for the Repatriation of Cultural Prope1iy: Prospects for a Managed Antiquities Market. Law and Policy in International Business 28:123- 150. Polk, K. 1999. "Illegal Prope1iy Markets." Paper presented at the 3rd National Outlook Symposium on Crime, Canberra, Australia, I 999. 258 -. 2000. The Antiquities Market Viewed as a Criminal Market. Hong Kong Lawyer:82- 91. Polk, M., and A. M. H. Schuster. Editors. 2005. The Looting of the Iraq Museum, Baghdad: The Lost Legacy of Ancient Mesopotamia. New York: Hany N. Ab rams. Pollock, S. 2005. "Archaeology Goes to War at the Newsstand," in Archaeologies of the Middle East. Critical Perspectives, Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology. Edited by S. Pollock and R. Bembeck, pp. 78-96. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Pomian, K. 1990. Collectors and Curiosities. Paris and Venice 1500-1800. Cambridge UK: Polity Press. Prag, K. 2002. The Blue Guide: Israel and the Palestinian Territories. New York: W.W. Nmton. Prott, L. V. 2005. The International Movement of Cultural Objects. International Journal of Cultural Property 12:225-248. Prott, L. V. , and P. J. O'Keefe. 1989. Law and the Cultural Heritage: Volume 3 Movement. Vol. 3. Law and the Cultural Heritage. London: Buttetworths. Reid, D. M. 2002. Whose Pharaohs? Archaeology, Museums, and Egyptian National Identity from Napoleon to World War I. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Renfrew, C. 2000a. The Fallacy of the Good Collector of Looted Antiquities. Public Archaeology 1:76-80. -. 2000b. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology, 1st edition. Ducbvorth Debates in Archaeology. London: Duckworth Publishing. Rheims, M. 1956. La vie etrange des objets. Paris. -. 1959. Art on the Market. Thirty-Five Centuries of Collecting and Collectors from Midas to Paul Getty. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Rigby, D., and E. Rigby. 1944. Lock, Stock, and Barrel: The Story of Collecting. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott. Rollston, C. A. 2003. Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Nmthwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests. Maarav 10: 135-193. -. 2004. Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II: The Status ofNon-Provenanced Epigraphs within the Broader Corpus ofNmthwest Semitic. Maarav 11:57-79. Romey, K. M. 2001. Cultural TetTorism. Archaeology 54:22. Roosevelt, C. H. , and C. Luke. fmthcoming. "Looting Lydia: The Destmction of an Archaeological Landscape in Westem Turkey," in Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and the Antiquities Trade. Edited by N. Brodie, M. M. Kersel, C. Luke, and K. Walker Tubb. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Rotenstein, D. S. 1997. "Bending Contexts: A Historical Perspective on Relic Collections," vol. 2002: Rotenstein, David S. Rothman, M. S. 2000. "The Commoditization of Goods and the Rise of the State in Ancient Mesopotamia," in Commodities and Globalization: Anthropological Perspectives, Society for Economic Anthropology Monographs. Edited by A. Haugemd, M. P. Stone, and P. D. Little, pp. 163-178. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Rowan, Y., and U. Baram. Editors. 2004. Marketing Heritage. Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Russell, H. 2004. "Hip-hip-hippo! The ~eo Mildenberg sale, Christie's," in The Art Newspaper, online edition, October 28, 2004: Themtnewspaper.com. SAFE. 2005. "Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE)," Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE). http://www.savingantiquities.m·g!index.htm. Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon. -. 1994. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books. Sanogo, K. 1999. The Looting of Cultural Material in Mali. Culture without Context Spring:6-9. Scham, S. A., and A. Yahya. 2003 . Heritage and Reconciliation (Cross-cultural Archaeology). Journal of Social Archaeology 3:399-416. Schavelzon, D. 2002. "What's Going on Around the Corner: Illegal Trade of Antiquities In Argentina," in Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology. Edited by K. W. Tubb, pp. 228-234. New York: Routledge. Schick, R. 1988. Christian Life in Palestine During the Early Islamic Period. Biblical Archaeologist 51:218-221, 239-240. 260 Schildkrout, E., and C. A. Keim. 1998. "Objects and Agendas: Re-collecting the Congo," in The Scramble for Art in Central Aji-ica. Edited by C. A. Keim, pp. 1-36. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, P., and R. Mcintosh. 1996. Plundering Africa's Past. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Schwatiz, S. C. 2001. Narcissism in Collecting Art and Antiques. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis 29:633-647. Scott, J. 1985. Weapons of the Weak. Eve1yday forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. Segev, T. 2000. One Palestine Complete. Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate. London: Abacus Press. Seligman, T. K. 1996. "What Value in Surplus Cultural Prope1iy," in Legal Aspects of International Trade in Art, vol. V, International Sales of Works of Art. Edited by M. Briat and J. A. Freedberg, pp. 131-134. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Shanks, H. 1985. Elie Borowski Seeks a Home for His Collections. Biblical Archaeological Review March/ April: 18-25. -. 1996. Magnificent Obsession. Biblical Archaeological Review May/June:22-35, 62- 64. -. 2001. "How to Stop Looting," in Archaeology and Society in the 2 I st Century: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Case Studies. Edited by N. Silbe1man and E. Frerichs, pp. 132-137. Jemsalem: Israel Exploration Society. -. 2005a. The Other Shoe. Five Accused of Antiquities Fraud. Biblical Archaeological Review March/April:58-69. -. 2005b. Should the Israel Museum Take the Dayan Collection Off Display? Biblical Archaeological Review March/ April: 52-57. -. 2005c. Update- Finds or Fakes?: MoussaieffHas Them Rolling in the Aisles. Biblical Archaeological Review November/December:60-64. Shavit, Y. 1997. "Archaeology, Political Culture, and Culture in Israel," in The Archaeology of Israel. Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present, vol. 237, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. Edited by N . A. Silberman and D. Small, pp. 48-61. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press . 261 · ---------:--~~~--- ----- Schildkrout, E., and C. A. Keim. 1998. "Objects and Agendas: Re-collecting the Congo," in The Scramble for Art in Central Africa. Edited by C. A. Keim, pp. 1-36. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, P., and R. Mclntosh. 1996. Plundering Aji-ica's Past. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Schwmiz, S. C. 2001. Narcissism in Collecting Art and Antiques. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis 29:633-647. Scott, J. 1985. Weapons of the Weak. Eve1yday forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. Segev, T. 2000. One Palestine Complete. Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate. London: Abacus Press. Seligman, T. K. 1996. "What Value in Surplus Cultural Property," in Legal Aspects of International Trade in Art, vol. V, International Sales of Works of Art. Edited by M. Briat and J. A. Freedberg, pp. 131-134. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Shanks, H. 1985. Elie Borowski Seeks a Home for His Collections. Biblical Archaeological Review March/ April: 18-25. -. 1996. Magnificent Obsession. Biblical Archaeological Review May/June:22-35, 62- 64. -. 2001. "How to Stop Looting," in Archaeology and Society in the 21st Century: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Case Studies. Edited by N. Silberman and E. Fre1ichs, pp. 132-137. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. -. 2005a. The Other Shoe. Five Accused of Antiquities Fraud. Biblical Archaeological Review March/April:58-69. -. 2005b. Should the Israel Museum Take the Dayan Collection Off Display? Biblical Archaeological Review March/April:52-57. -. 2005c. Update- Finds or Fakes?: MoussaieffHas Them Rolling in the Aisles. Biblical Archaeological Review November/December:60-64. Shavit, Y. 1997. "Archaeology, Political Culture, and Culture in Israel," in The Archaeology of Israel. Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present, vol. 237, Journalfor the Study ofthe Old Testament Supplement Series. Edited by N. A. Silberman and D. Small, pp. 48-61. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 261 . Shaw, W. M. K. 2003. Possessors and Possessed. Museums, Archaeology, and the Visualization of History in the Late Ottoman Empire. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Shenhav-Keller, S. 1993. The Israeli Souvenir. Its Text and Context. Annals of Tourism Research 20:182-196. -. 1995. "The Jewish Pilgrim and the Purchase of a Souvenir in Israel," in International Tourism: Identity and Change, vol. 47, Studies in International Sociology. Edited by M.-F. Lanfant, J. B. Allcock, and E. M. Bruner, pp. 143-158. London: Sage. Silbetman, N. A. 1982. Diggingfor God and Country. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. -. 1989. Between Past and Present. Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East. New York: Double Day Books. -. 1991. Desolation and Restoration: The Impact of a Biblical Concept on Near Eastern Archaeology. Biblical Archaeologist 54:76-87. -. 1995a. The Hidden Scrolls. Christianity, Judaism, and the War for the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Heinemann. - . 1995b. "Power, Politics and the Past: The Social Construction of Antiquity in the Holy Land," in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Edited by T. E. Levy, pp. 9-23 . London: Leicester University Press. -. 1997. "Structuring the Past: Israelis, Palestinians, and the Symbolic Authority of Archaeological Monuments," in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. Edited by N. A. Silbetman and D. Small, pp. 62- 81. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press. Silverstein, K. 2001. "Diamonds of Death," in The Nation, pp. 19-22. New York. Smith, K. 2005. Looting and the Politics of Archaeological Knowledge in Nmihern Peru. Ethnos 70:149-170. Smith, V. L. 1978. Hosts and Guests. The Anthropology of Tourism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Press. Staley, D. 1993. St. Lawrence Island's Subsistence Diggers: A New Perspective on Human Effects on Archaeological Sites. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:347- 356. 262 Shaw, W. M. K. 2003. Possessors and Possessed. Museums, Archaeology, and the Visualization of Hist01y in the Late Ottoman Empire. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Shenhav-Keller, S. 1993. The Israeli Souvenir. Its Text and Context. Annals ofTourism Research 20:182-196. -. 1995. "The Jewish Pilgrim and the Purchase of a Souvenir in Israel," in International Tourism: Identity and Change, vol. 47, Studies in International Sociology. Edited by M.-F. Lanfant, J. B. Allcock, and E. M. Bmner, pp. 143-158. London: Sage. Silberman, N. A. 1982. Diggingfor God and Country. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. -. 1989. Between Past and Present. Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East. New York: Double Day Books. -. 1991. Desolation and Restoration: The Impact of a Biblical Concept on Near Eastern Archaeology. Biblical Archaeologist 54:76-87. -. 1995a. The Hidden Scrolls. Christianity, Judaism, and the War for the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Heinemann. -. 1995b. "Power, Politics and the Past: The Social Constmction of Antiquity in the Holy Land," in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Edited by T. E. Levy, pp. 9-23. London: Leicester University Press. -. 1997. "Stmcturing the Past: Israelis, Palestinians, and the Symbolic Authority of Archaeological Monuments," in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. Edited by N. A. Silbe1man and D. Small, pp. 62- 81. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press. Silverstein, K. 2001. "Diamonds of Death," in The Nation, pp. 19-22. New York. Smith, K. 2005. Looting and the Politics of Archaeological Knowledge in Nmthern Pem. Ethnos 70:149-170. Smith, V. L. 1978. Hosts and Guests. The Anthropology ofTourism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Press. Staley, D. 1993. St. Lawrence Island's Subsistence Diggers: A New Perspective on Human Effects on Archaeological Sites. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:347- 356. Stead, I. 1998. The Salisbury Hoard. Stroud, England: Tempus Publishing Limited. Steen, D. 2002. Nation Building and Archaeological Narrative in the West Banlc Stanford Journal of Archaeology 1:1-24. Stewmi, S. M. 1984. On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the Collection. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University. Ston, A. 1983. The Psychology of Collecting. Connoisseur 213:35-38. Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Suess, D. 1971. The Lorax. New York: Random House. Taha, H. 2002. "Protection of Cultural Heritage in Palestine," in La Tutela Del Patrimonio Culturale in Caso Di Conjlitto, vol. 2. Edited by F. Maniscalco, pp. 265-270. Napoli, Italy: Massa Editore. Tanselle, T., G. 1998. A Rationale of Collecting. Studies in Bibliography 51:1-25 . Tedlock, B. 2000. "Ethnography and Ethnographic Representation," in Handbook of Qualitative Research, Second Edition. Edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, pp. 455-486. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. The Egyptian State Information Service. 2005. "Egyptian Embassy Retrieves Stolen Antiquities," The Egyptian State Information Service, online edition, February 26, 2005. Thoden van Velzen, D. 1996. The World ofTuscan Tomb Robbers: Living with the Local Community and the Ancestors. International Journal of Cultural Property 5:111-125. -. 1999. "The Continuing Reinvention of the Etruscan Myth," in Archaeology and Folklore, Theoretical Archaeology Group. Edited by A. Gazin-Schwartz and C. Holtorf, pp. 175-195. London: Routledge. Towner, J. 1985. The Grand Tour. A Key Phase in the History of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 12:297-333. Trigger, B. G. 1984. Alternative Archaeologies -Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist. Man 19:355-370. Vincent, S. 2000. A Response from Outside Archaeology. Public Archaeology 1:80-81. 263 Watkins, J. 2000. "B1iefing Paper on Consideration of the Potentially Negative Impact of the Publication of Factual Data about a Study Population on Such Population," American Anthropological Association. Watson, P. 1997. Sotheby's: Inside Story. London: Bloomsbury Press. -. fmihcoming. "Convicted Dealers: What We Can Leam," in Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade. Edited by N. Brodie, M. M. Kersel, C. Luke, and K. W. Tub b . Gainesville, FL: University Press of Flmida. White, S. 1998. A Collector's Odyssey. International Journal of Cultural Property 7:170- 176. White, S., and L. Levy. 1990. "Introduction," in Glories of the Past. Ancient Artfi'om the Shelby White and Lean Levy Collection . Edited by D. von Bothmer, pp. ix-x. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, distributed by Hany N. Abrams, Inc. Wilford, J. N. 2002. "Jesus' Inscription on stone may be earliest ever found," in New York Times, online edition, October 22, 2002. Wilken, R. L. 1992. The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian Histmy and Thought . New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. Wilson, S., and M. Zambrano. 1994. "Cocaine, Commodity Chains, and Drug Politics: A Transnational Approach," in Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, vol. 149, Economics and Economic Histmy. Edited by G. Gereffi and M. Korzeniewicz, pp. 297-315. London: Greenwood Press. Wolcott, H. 1988. "Ethnographic Research in Education," in Complementmy Methods for Research in Art Education, First edition. Edited by R. M. Jaeger, pp. 187-206. Washington DC: American Education Research Association. Wylie, A. 1995. "Archaeology and the Antiquities Market: The Use of Looted Data," in Ethics in American Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s. Edited by A. Wylie, pp. 17-21. Washington DC: Society of American Archaeology. Yahya, A. 2002. A Palestinian Organization Works to Preserve Sites in the West Bank in the Midst of War. Near Eastern Archaeology 65:279-281. -. 2005. "Archaeology and Nationalism in the Holy Land," in Archaeologies of the Middle East. Critical Perspectives, Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology. Edited by S. Pollock and R. Bembeck, pp. 66-77. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 264 Zembavel, Y. 1995. Recovered Roots: Collective Mem01y and the Making of Israeli National Treasure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Zissu, B. 1998. Prevention of Antiquities' Robberies. Hadashot Arkheologiyot- Excavations and Surveys in Israel 18: 1 08-1 09. Zuniga, G. L. 1999. An Ontology of Economic Objects. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 58:299-312. 265 APPENDIX 1: THE ANTIQUITIES LAW 5738-1978 (ISRAEL) The Antiquities Law 1978 was enacted in order to protect the antiquities of the country, i.e., any object, which was made by man before 1700 CE, or any zoological or botanical remains from before the year 1300 CE ... • Chapter One: Interpretation • Chapter Two: State Ownership of Antiquities • Chapter Three: Excavations • Chapter Four: Dealing in and Expmt of Antiquities • Chapter Five: Collectors of Antiquities • Chapter Six: Museums • Chapter Seven: Antiquity Sites • Chapter Eight: Expropriation • Chapter Nine: Archaeological Council and Objection Conm1ittee • Chapter Ten: Offences and Penalties • Chapter Eleven: Miscellaneous Chapter 1: Interpretation Definitions 1. In this Law "antiquity'l means - 1) Any object, whether detached or fixed, which was made by man before the year 1700 of the general era, and includes anything subsequently added thereto which fom1s an integral part thereof; 2) Any object refened to in paragraph (1) which was made by man in or after the year 1700 of the general era, which is of historical value, and which the Minister has declared to be an antiquity; 3) Zoological or botanical remains from before the year 1300 of the general era; "antiquity site" means an area which contains antiquities and in respect of which the Director has made a declaration under section 28 (a); "land" includes any part of any sea, lake, river or other water and the bottom thereof; "excavation" or "digging" includes a search for antiquities and trial digging; "collection" means an assemblage of antiquities, other than antiquities in the possession of a dealer in antiquities as trading stock; "collector" means a person who collects antiquities othetwise than for the purpose of trading therein; "museum" means any pemmnent exhibition of antiquities open to the public and any institution keeping a collection and exhibiting it for purposes of research, education or entertainment; "The Depattment" means the Department of Antiquities and Museums of the Ministry of Education and Culture; "the Council" means the Archaeological Council; "the Director" means the Director of the Depmtment; "the Minister" means the Minister of Education and Culture. Chapter Two: State Ownership of Antiquities State ownership of antiquities 2. (a) When an antiquity is discovered or found in Israel after the coming into force of this Law, it shall within boundaries fixed by the Director become the propetty of the State. (b) A person who alleges that any antiquity was discovered or found before the coming into force of this Law shall bear the onus of proof. Notification of discovery of antiquity. 3. A person who discovers or finds an antiquity otherwise than in an excavation under a licence pursuant to this Law shall notify the Director within fifteen days of the discovery or find. Request for delivery. 4. The Director may in writing request a person in possession of an antiquity refened to in section 2(a) to deliver it up to him, and he may reward the deliverer if he considers that the circumstances justify his doing so. Request for loan of antiquity. 5. The Director may in writing request any person in possession of an antiquity to give it to him for the purpose of inspection or any other purpose for a period not exceeding ninety days. Discontinuance of work after discovery of antiquity. 6. (a) When a person canying out any operations on land, whether his own land or the land of another, discovers an antiquity thereon, he shall notify the Director as provided in section 3 and shall discontinue the operations for fifteen days from the date of delivery of the notification unless during that period he receives pem1ission from the Director to continue the work. (b) Within fifteen days from the date of delivery of notification as aforesaid, the Director may notify the owner and the occupier of the land, in writing, of the conditions for continuation of the work or may order its permanent discontinuance. Compensation. 7. (a) A person affected by a notification ofthe Director under section 6 (b) shall be entitled to compensation for the damage caused to him. (b) A demand for compensation shall be submitted to the Director in the manner and at the time prescribed by regulations. 267 (c) Where the demand of the person affected is not accepted, wholly or in pati, the Couti shall decide. Waiver of rights of State. 8. The Director may waive State ownership of an antiquity in writing, and upon his doing so, the antiquity shall cease to be the propetiy of the State. Chapter Three: Excavations Excavation Licence. 9.(a) No person shall dig on any land, or otherwise search, for antiquities, including the use of a metal detector, or gather antiquities, unless he has obtained a licence to do so from the Director (hereinafter refeiTed to as an "excavation licence") and in accordance with the conditions of the licence. (b) When deciding upon an application for an excavation licence, the Director shall consult with the Council and shall make the scientific and financial ability of the applicant his prime consideration. (c) An excavation licence shall define the area in which digging is permitted. (d) The issue of an excavation licence shall not by itself confer on its holder the right of entry to land in another's domain. Right of entry. 10. (a) No person shall enter any land for which an excavation licence has been issued unless he is the occupier thereof or has been authorised on behalf of the occupier and subject to the consent of the holder of the licence. , (b) During the excavation, no person, other than the Director or a person empowered by him, shall photograph, paint, draw or othetwise depict the excavation or the antiquities discovered in it, save with the permission of the holder of the licence. Safety Measures. 11. (a) The holder of an excavation licence shall, both during the excavation and thereafter, until the expiration of the period stipulated in the licence, take all measures required- (1) to ensure the well-being ofworkers and visitors at the place of the excavation and the fencing off of such place; (2) to protect, and ensure the preservation of, the place of the excavation and the antiquities discovered thereat; (3) to prevent all damage or nuisance to neighbouring property. (b) Where the holder of a licence does not comply with the provisions of subsection (1 ), the Director may, without prejudice to the provisions of section 13, after warning the holder ofthe licence in writing, take the required measures in his stead and collect from him the expenses involved. 268 Particulars and publications relating to excavation. 12. (a) At the dates prescribed by the Director, but not less than once a year from the date of COI1ill1encement of the excavation, the holder of an excavation licence shall deliver to the Director in writing - (1) a report, as detailed as possible, of the excavation, including sketches, plans and photographs of the work canied out; (2) details, including photographs and other visual aids, of the antiquities discovered in the excavation. (b) The holder of a licence shall have an exclusive right of publication in respect of the excavation for ten years from the tetmination thereof. Publication in contravention of this subsection shall be a civil wrong under the Civil Wrongs Ordinance (New Version) I (c) Within five years from the date of termination of the excavation, the holder ofthe licence shall produce an appropriate scientific publication describing the findings and results of the excavation and shall deliver two copies of same to the Director. He shall also deliver to the Director two copies of every publication composed by him conceming the findings and results of the excavation. Revocation and Withholding of excavation licence. 13. Where the holder of an excavation licence infringes any of the provisions of this Law or the regulations made thereunder or any of the conditions of the licence, the Director may revoke or suspend the licence or attach fmther conditions thereto; and where he infringes the provision of section 12 (c), the Director may refrain from granting him another excavation licence until he complies with the said provision. Waiver by agreement 14. The Director may, after consultation with the Council , enter into an agreement with the holder of an excavation licence conceming a waiver ofthe rights of the State in antiquities discovered in the excavation and conceming the app01tionment of such antiquities between the State and the holder ofthe licence. Chapter Four: Dealing in and Export of Antiquities Licence. 15. A person may only deal in antiquities if he is in possession of a licence for this activity from the Director and in accordance with the conditions of the licence, which shall be prescribed by regulations . . Place of business of dealer 16. (a) A licence to deal in antiquities shall indicate the place of business. It shall only be valid for that place and shall be displayed there in a conspicuous location. (b) A person shall not exhibit a licence which has expired. Duty to keep inventory. 17. A dealer in antiquities shall keep an inventory in the manner prescribed by regulations. Revocation of licence. 269 . 18. (a) The Director may revoke a licence to deal in antiquities permanently or suspend it for a period prescribed by him if the holder is convicted of an offence under this Law or the regulations made thereunder. (b) A dealer whose licence has been revoked or suspended shall be treated as a collector. Antiquity of national value. 19. (a) The Director may in writing notify the owner or possessor of an antiquity that the antiquity is of national value. (b) Within three months of notification under subsection (a), the Director may request that the antiquity be sold to the State. (c) (1) Where a person wishes to sell or otherwise transfer an antiquity of national value, he shall give advance notice to the Director. (2) Within tlu·ee months of receipt of notice under paragraph (1),the Director may request that the antiquity be sold to the State. If the Director does not so request, the owner of the antiquity may sell or othetwise transfer it after he or the possessor thereof has, in writing, conununicated to the Director the name and address of the purchaser or transferee. (d) Where the antiquity is an integral pat1 of a group of antiquities, the Director may only request as provided in subsection (b) or (c) in respect of the group as a whole. (e) Where the Director and the owner or possessor of the antiquity do not reach agreement as to the consideration, the com1 shall decide the matter. Presumption of knowledge. 20. Where a dealer in antiquities offers any attic le for sale as an antiquity, his plea that he did not know that the article was not, an antiquity shall not be accepted. Restriction as to replica or composite. 21.(a) A person shall not sell or display for sale a replica or imitation of an antiquity without indicating thereon, in the manner prescribed by regulations, that it is not a genuine antiquity. (b) A person shall not sell an antiquity consisting of pa11s of different antiquities - whether with or without supplements or additions -without indicating the composite character in the manner prescribed by regulations. Restrictions on export of antiquities. 22.(a) A person shall not take out oflsrael an antiquity of national value save with the written approval of the Director. (b) A person shall not take out oflsrael any other antiquity save with the written approval of the Director. Chapter Five: Collectors of Antiquities Notice to Director. 23. A collector shall conununicate to the Director, at his request, pat1iculars prescribed by regulations in consultation with the Conm1ittee on Education and Culture of the Knesset 270 . concerning antiquities in his possession and shall permit the Director or a person empowered by him in writing to make a photograph or sketch or a cast, print or other reproduction thereof. Antiquity of particular scientific importance. 24. (a)The Director or a person empowered by him may notify a collector that an antiquity in his possession is of pa1ticular scientific impmtance (any such antiquity hereinafter referred to as a "special antiquity"). (b )The Director or a person empowered by him shall keep a record of special antiquities and of the particulars, photographs and sketches obtained or made under section 23 which shall be open to inspection by the public as he shall prescribe. Transfer of special antiquity. 25. (a) When a collector wishes to sell or otherwise transfer a special antiquity, he shall give advance notice to the Director. (b) Within twenty-one days of receiving the notice, the Director may request that the antiquity be sold to the State. Where the antiquity is an integral part of a group of antiquities, the Director may only request as aforesaid in respect of the group as a whole. (c) When the Director and the collector do not reach agreement as to the consideration, the comt shall decide the matter. Chapter Six: Museums Removal of antiquity from control of museum 26. (a) When the owner or director of a museum wishes to sell or otherwise transfer an antiquity which is in the museum or in the museum's collections or to dispose of one of the museum's collections, he shall give advance notice to the Director. (b) Within twenty-one days of receiving the notice, the Director may request that the antiquity or collection be sold or transfened to the State, as the case may be. (c) When the Director and the owner or director ofthe museum do not reach agreement as to the consideration to be paid for the antiquity or collection, the comt shall decide the matter. Notice to director. 27. The provision of section 23 shall apply to the owner or director of a museum in respect of the antiquities in the museum and in its collection. Chapter Seven: Antiquity Sites Antiquity site. 28. (a) The Director may declare a pmticular place to be an antiquity site. The declaration shall be published in Reshumot. (b) When the director declares as aforesaid, a note to such effect shall be entered in the Land Register and notice shall be given to the owner and the occupier of the place, if their identity or addresses are known, and to the District Plmming and Building Commission. Prohibition of operations on antiquity site. 271 29. (a) A person shall not carry out, or allow to be canied out, any of the following on an antiquity site, save with the written approval of the Director and in accordance with the conditions thereof: (1) building, paving, the erection of installations, quanying, mining, drilling, flooding, the clearing away of stones, ploughing, planting, or intennent; (2) the dumping of eatth, manure, waste or refuse, including the dumping thereof on adjoining pro petty; (3) any alteration, repair or addition to an antiquity located on the site; ( 4) the dismantling of an antiquity, the removal of patt thereof or the shifting thereof; (5) writing, carving or painting; (6) the erection of buildings or walls on adjoining property; (7) any other operation designated by the Director in respect of a patticular site. (b) Notice of the designation of an operation under paragraph (7) of subsection (a) shall be published in Reshumot. (c) When an antiquity site is used for religious requirements or devoted to a religious purpose, the Director shall not approve digging or any of the operations enumerated in subsection (a) save with the approval of a Committee of Ministers consisting ofthe Minister as chairman, the Minister of Religious Affairs and the Minister of Justice. Saving of Law. 30. The provisions of this Law shall not derogate fi·om the requirement of a permit under the Platming and Building Law, (5725-19652) Restoration to previous condition. 31. A person who has canied out one of the operations specified in section 29 without approval or in contravention of the conditions ofthe approval, shall take action, in accordance with the directions of the Director, to restore the antiquity site of the antiquities situated thereon to its or their fonner condition; but the Director may, after giving the person written notice, himself take all the steps required for that purpose and recover from him the expenses incuned. Chapter Eight: Expropriation 32. (a) The Minister may expropriate- (1) an antiquity site the expropriation of which is, in his opinion, required for purposes of conservation and research; (2) any land the expropriation of which is, in his opinion, required in order to enable digging thereon. (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an antiquity site used for religious requirements or devoted to a religious purpose and owned by a religious institution: provided that a Conm1ittee of Ministers 272 consisting of the Minister, the Minister of Religious Affairs, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs may, with the approval of the Committee on Education and Culture of the Knesset, make it applicable thereto with or without restrictions. Mode of Expropriation. 33. Expropriation shall be in accordance with the Land (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance, 19433, and for this purpose the Minister shall, mutatis mutandis, have all the powers and functions of the Govemment under that Ordinance. Chapter Nine: Archaeological Council and Objection Committee Archaeological Council. 34. (a) The Minister shall appoint an Archaeological Council and shall by regulations prescribe its composition and period of tenure and procedure for its deliberations and work. (b) The Council shall advise the Minister and the Director on matters of archaeology and antiquities they may bring before it and shall cany out the functions assigned to it by this Law. (c) The Council may delegate powers to conu11ittees from among its members. Objection Committee. 35. There shall be established by the side of the Council an Objection Committee oftlu·ee members, two of them appointed by the Council otherwise than fi·om among its members and one a Judge, or person qualified to be a Judge, appointed by the Minister of Justice to be chairman of the Conunittee. Powers of Objection Committee 36. (a) A person who considers himself aggrieved by any ofthe following decisions ofthe Director may object thereto before the Objection Co1m11ittee, but without the filing of objection voiding the decision: (1) the fixing ofthe boundaries of an area referred to in section 2(a); (2) a second or subsequent request for delivery of an antiquity under section 5; (3). a refusal to grant, the revocation or suspension of, or the attachment of conditions to, an excavation licence (4) a refusal to grant, or the revocation or suspension of, a licence to deal in antiquities; (5) a refusal to grant a pennit under section 22(b); (6) notification that a particular antiquity is of national value; (7) notification to a collector that an antiquity in his possession is a special antiquity; (8) notification that a pmticular antiquity is or is not an integral pmt of a group of antiquities; (9) refusal to grant approval under section 29. (b) In an objection proceeding, the Objection Conm1ittee may give any decision the Director is 273 competent to give under this Law. (c) An Objection Conm1ittee shall have all the powers vested in a conunittee of inquiry within the meaning of the Cmrunissions of Inquiry Law, 5729-1968.4 Chapter Ten: Offences and Penalties Offences and Penalties 37. (a) A person who willfully injures or, in any manner, willfully defaces any antiquity or antiquity site or contravenes any of the provisions of section 9 (a) is liable to imprisonment for a term of three years or a fine of 150,000 pounds. (b) A person who contravenes any of the provisions of section 6 is liable to imprisomnent for a term oftwo years or a fine of 150,000 pounds. (c) A person who contravenes any ofthe provisions of sections 3, 15, 19(b), 21 or 29 is liable to imprisonment for a tenn of two years or a fine of 100,000 pounds. (d) A person who contravenes any of the provisions of section 11(a) is liable to imprisomnent for a tenn of one year or a fine of 30,000 pounds. (e) A person who contravenes any other provision of this Law or the regulations thereunder is liable to imprisomnent for a term of six months or a fine of 30,000 pounds. Presumption. 38. If a person is found on an antiquity site with digging implements in his possession or nearby with which it must be supposed digging has recently been done on that site or is found with a metal detector in his possession or nearby, he shall, unless he proves othetwise, be presumed to have intended to discover antiquities. Chapter Eleven: Miscellaneous Certificate by Director to be prima facie evidence. 39. A cettificate by the Director that some pmticular land contains antiquities or that some object is an antiquity shall be prima facie evidence thereof. Powers of entry and examination. 40. The Director or a person empowered by him in that behalf in writing may at any reasonable time enter upon any land to examine whether the provisions of this law or the regulations made or conditions of any cettificate issued thereunder have been complied with thereon or to examine any antiquity discovered or found thereon and to make a sketch or photograph or a cast, print or other reproduction thereof. Delegation of powers. 41. Subject to any regulation, the Director may, by notice in Reshumot, delegate any of his powers under this Law, other than his powers under sections 8, 13 and 14. Controlled places. 42. (a) In this section, "controlled place" means - (1) land in the possession of the Depm1ment; (2) an antiquity site. (b) A police officer or a person authorised in that behalf by the Director in writing may remove from a controlled place any person who contravenes therein any of the provisions of this Law or the regulations thereunder. (c) The Minister may by regulations enact provisions as to visits to controlled places and the behaviour of visitors therein, fees for admission thereto, the protection thereof and the protection of the antiquities, accessories and furniture situated therein. Application of the Law in a military area. 43. (a) The following provisions shall apply in a military area: (1) no person shall enter it for purposes of this Law save with the prior approval of a person empowered in that behalf by the Minister of Defence; (2) no act shall be done therein on behalf of the Director save with the consent of the Minister of Defence; (3) no antiquity shall be dealt with therein on behalf of a military body save with the approval of the Director. (b) For the purposes of this section, "military area" means any land occupied by the Defence Army of Israel or any other branch of the Defence Establishment approved by the Minister of Defence, and includes an area used for military exercises. Inapplicability. 44. The Minister may, in consultation with the Council and with the approval of the Committee on Education and Culture of the Knesset, prescribe, by order, that any of the provisions of this Law or the regulations thereunder shall not apply to antiquities, museums, excavations and antiquity sites defined in the order. Saving of Validity. 45. This Law shall add to, and not derogate from, any obligation imposed or power conferred by another enactment. Implementation and regulations. 46. (a) The Minister is charged with the implementation of this Law and may make regulations as to any matter relating to its implementation, including the collection of fees for licences issued under it. (b) The Minister of Justice may make rules of procedure for proceedings under this Law by the Objection Committee established under section 35. Applicability to State. 47. (a) For the purposes of this Law, the State shall be treated like any person. (b) The provision of subsection (a) shall not derogate from the provision of section 8 ofthe Civil Wrongs (Liability ofthe State) Law. 5712-1952.5 275 · Repeal. 48. There are hereby repealed- (1) the Antiquities Ordinance.6 (2) the Antiquities (Enclosures) Ordinance, 1935.7 Transitional Provisions. 49. (a) A licence issued under the Antiquities Ordinance which was in force inm1ediately before the coming into force of this Law shall be deemed to have been issued under this Law. (b) The schedules of historical monuments and sites published under the Antiquities Ordinance which were in force immediately before the coming into force of this Law shall be deemed to have been published under section 28 of this Law. Publication. 50. This Law shall be published in Reshumot within fifteen days of the date of its adoption by the Knesset. Passed by the Knesset on the 23rd Shevat, 5738 (31st January, 1978) EFRA YIM KA TZIR President of the State MENAHEM BEGIN Prime Minister ZEVULUN HAMMER Minister of Education and Culture and published in Sefer Ha-Chukkim No. 885 of the 3rd Adar Alef, 5738 (lOth February, 1978), p. 76; the Bill and an Explanatory Note were published in Hatza'ot Chok No. 1250 of 5736, p. 314. 1 Dinai Medinat Yisrael (Nusach Chadash) N. 10, p.268; NV vol. II, p. 5 2 Sefer Ha-Chukkim of 5725, p. 307; LSI vol. XIX, p. 330. 3 P.G. of 1943, Suppl. I, p. 44 (English Edition). 4 Sefer Ha-Chukkim of 5729 p. 28, LSI vol XXIII, p. 32 5 Sefer Ha-Chukkim of 5712, p. 339; LSI VOL. VI, p. 147. 6 Laws of Palestine vol. I, p. 28 (English Edition). 7 P.G. of 1935, Suppl. I, p. 147 (English Edition). 276 · APPENDIX 2: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES I INTERVIEW GROUP I DATE OF INTERVIEW I Archaeologist 1 February 20, 2004 Archaeologist 2 August 19, 2004 Archaeologist 3 June 24, 2004 Archaeologist 4 January 6, 2005 Archaeologist 5 July 23, 2004 Archaeologist 6 May 3, 2004 Archaeologist 7 February 22, 2004 Archaeologist 8 July 31, 2004 Archaeologist 9 May 3, 2004 Archaeologist 1 0 December 23, 2004 Archaeologist 11 February 23, 2004 Archaeologist 12 September 5, 2005 Archaeologist 13 July 28, 2004 Archaeologist 14 March 26, 2004 Archaeologist 15 March 14, 2004 Archaeologist 16 March 10, 2004 Archaeologist 17 January 18, 2004 Archaeologist 18 March 10, 2004 Archaeologist 19 July 22, 2004 Archaeologist 20 January 5, 2005 Archaeologist 21 December 19, 2004 Archaeologist 22 February 5, 2004 Collector 1 August 22, 2004 Collector 2 June 23, 2004 Collector 3 June 19, 2004 Collector 4 March 12, 2004 Collector 5 April 5, 2004 Collector 6 October 23, 2003 Collector 7 January 18, 2004 Collector 8 January 18, 2004 Collector 9 February 20, 2004 Dealer 1 June 10, 2004 Dealer 2 February 18, 2004 Dealer 3 March 8, 2004 Dealer 4 October 23, 2003 Dealer 5 September 19, 2003 Dealer 6 January 18, 2004 Dealer 7 October 11, 2003 Dealer 8 April 29, 2004 Dealer 9 July 12, 2004 Dealer 10 July 16, 2004 Dealer 11 February 13, 2004 277 . Dealer 12 October 18, 2003 Dealer 13 June 14, 2004 Dealer 14 December 2, 2003 Dealer 15 October 15, 2003 Dealer 16 June 5, 2003 Dealer 17 December 5, 2003 Dealer 18 February 15, 2004 Dealer 19 April 29, 2004 Dealer 20 December 28, 2003 Dealer 21 January 3, 2004 Dealer 22 February 23, 2004 Dealer 23 June 19, 2004 Dealer 24 July 6, 2004 Dealer 25 May 17, 2004 Dealer 26 March 3, 2004 Dealer 27 March 6, 2004 Dealer 28 May 18, 2004 Dealer 29 November 28, 2004 Dealer 30 June 15, 2004 Dealer 31 September 16, 2004 Dealer 32 August 3, 2004 Dealer 33 August 19, 2004 Dealer 34 December 18, 2003 Dealer 35 May 30,2004 Government Employee 1 June 24, 2004 Government Employee 2 ..._ July 26, 2004 Government Employee 3 February 24, 2004 Government Employee 4 June 28, 2004 Government Employee 5 June 27, 2004 Government Employee 6 March 16, 2004 Government Employee 7 June 30, 2004 Government Employee 8 June 23, 2004 Govenm1ent Employee 9 July 27, 2004 Government Employee 10 September 5, 2003 Government Employee 11 July 21, 2004 Govenm1ent Employee 12 June 23, 2004 Govenunent Employee 13 December 27, 2004 Govemment Employee 14 December 27, 2004 Government Employee 15 August 1 7, 2004 Govenm1ent Employee 16 February 24, 2004 Government Employee 17 November 15, 2003 Miscellaneous 1 September 13, 2003 Miscellaneous 2 December 23, 2004 Miscellaneous 3 April 22, 2005 Miscellaneous 4 October 20, 2004 Miscellaneous 5 August 18, 2004 Museum Professionals 1 October 20, 2004 Museum Professionals 2 March 2, 2004 Museum Professionals 3 September 22, 2003 Museum Professionals 4 September 22, 2003 Museum Professionals 5 February 23, 2004 Museum Professionals 6 April 6, 2004 279 APPENDIX 3: THE INTERVIEW GUIDE - ENGLISH Profile Data Sheet Date __________________________________________________________ __ Interviewer ______________________________________________________ _ Site Visit Yes ---- No ______ __ Name __________________________________________________________ __ Address - Telephone ________________________________________________________ _ Email __________________________________________________________ ___ Position ·--------------------------------------- -------------------- THE BIG QUESTION: Should there be a legal sale of antiquities in Israel? A. Selection Criteria Collector __ Dealer __ Archaeologist __ Looter ___ Other __ Near Eastem archaeological focus Yes No ____ _ Antiquities Yes No --- Years in the field ------------- B. Dealers/Small Businesses 1. Institutional Profile Type of organization Profit Non-profit. __________ _ How long in the business years Family business Yes No --- - Officially sanctioned by the IAA Yes No ___ _ 280 Officially sanctioned by the Ministry of Tourism Yes No __ _ How many employees _____ Full time ___ Part time __ _ Finance Officer Yes No Full time Part time --- --- ---- ----- Stakeholders Board of Directors Shareholders ---- ---- ----- Business computerized Yes No --- Use of a registry system Yes No __ _ Profit margin Yes No __ _ 2. Consumer Profile Are the buyers generally tourists? Yes No __ _ Are the buyers generally long time collectors? Yes No ___ _ What countries are they from (or what citizenship? _____________ _ Do you have repeat customet's? Yes No ___ _ How much do they generally spend? ________________ _ How many items do they purchase (per visit)? _____________ _ How often do you sell a "high end" item? ________________ _ Do you do much business online? Yes No __ _ If yes, what kinds of items are purchased on line, from what countries? How has the recent uprising affected your business? Less More via the intemet --- Do buyers routinely ask about provenance'? Yes No ---- 1 The provenance (a tetm most often used by art historians) of an object includes the ~riginallocation and context of an object as well as the history or ownership, a key part in the evaluation of an object's value. Provenience (most often used by anthropologists and archaeologists) is a tetm used to mean the miginal location and context of an object. 281 ' Is there a recent trend for more consumers to ask about provenance? Yes __ _ No ---- Should dealers, shops and/or auction houses be required to provide provenance? Yes No --- Do you think licensing dealer schemes would be an effective means of reducing the illicit trade in a11? Yes No Why or Why not? _____________ _ Is the permit/licensing process difficult? Yes No ___ _ Are their regular inspections by the IAA or the Ministry of Tourism? Yes No IfYes, HowOften _________________________ __ Where do you get most of your material from? _______________ _ How would you characterize the role of antiquities dealers in the market place? Do you find market trends occurring according to "block buster shows" at local museums? Yes No --- 282 APPENDIX 4: THE INTERVIEW GUIDE- ARABIC wul.u~~ ... _)J .JI ·. ~11 .J/o .. .:. . -11 ~ ~~ ~1/ ~~ ..r" .JJ ~ .. .) . cu _) . ------------------------------------------------ ~";/\ :l)_JkJI ---------------------------------------------- ~'+\I ----------------------------------------------- . ::< 1";1 I ~ · ·11 ----------------------------------------~.)~, .. ~ ~I ~\J\j.JI JJJ/o~l ~J~If)~ll -Y ~j.JIJ~~.l ~ tl_,..;._, \.:i:!.J! JW ~J L,Sji 0-> .llo:i_J .lo......,:Wi H ~yl:.ll ~4 ~I ~4 ~J'il J..,>JJI ~ d~ 1. ·?''j,,./'ji.J ·~IJ .4.,J.jf,!ll W:.l._, ~IJ •4.4!1-J ,A;'A;i;i'l .::.I.;WWI.S ~.llli.::.I.;WWI ~_,.. ~J .c.:A.>:d .~.}.!1 o.;WWI .l.f-4 .JA .lo....._,'il J..,>JJI 283 . ~.lilt ~·'it • (4. .. u . .8t , .. ~L..:i.lt ,4...U.l&..4Jt .~...,t · ) ~t t.:i'it I ·t · ·'L.. t.:i'it u ' · 2 •• .J cJA • • .JV:I" .J. c--OA •. .J .JcJ.:J't',.J ~ • '1 ·.o\.J~Iwlilllll.hb. t .:· .. q~ ~ . __g ·· .... <:q ~~ - ~ . ... .J .J~ . .J .. c..? y~ r- ~ '1 . )I :· \.AI - - ~ ~ (.)-~lA '1 · ~ (Wk. 1 ~ ) 4.ili · . q ~ ~ ~ - - ~ .. .J .. .J .. ua.J.JC c..r .J 4...Jb ')I c:..wtS •I' ., J I~ 1 . c:..w '"')I~ J)L;.. . ~j . _(. I • . . , u, ~ .J . r' - ~ _J-l-l, . lJA UJ-'":1 UIO _ '1 _ ~ .Jij.JI ( w4o, )LitS) ~~ '1 · ~·li · \11 till 1 '-l..l.ul.J t .<:1.·: ·:q u')WI · 1 ··)\.Cu w...j 1. - - ~ _JJ _) _) . . . ~ !..,?'"' l)A r..j tj ' . (JIO - '1 - ~ ~ 0,!ji.&.o .J ~ .J r-~ e:u~l (.).-'il ~!)<"~I) provenance_;~ Ji J....ol ~ 4. provenience _;~ Ji J..,.oi ~ L.l .L. ~ ~ ~!) (,f""'L...i F-..?,. .JAJ .!l~'il ~...Ji.:j ~! ~W.! 4.:a.;~J .L. Woii..:..U_,s...JIJ ~'il W.WI ~...J (_;l!i~IJ uL......)'I ~!) ur·~.JI J,.! <)A u\.:>-'il ~!) !"~ ~) 285 ' ~.)~IJ ~~~LP Jly.Jlu.l"'g·; .. ,JI LJ..a .fi.i j,k. <.Sjj ~ji ~b.~~ Jot. ~ "i ~ r.l~ jlj.JI .JJ~ )! J ~.J~I Jb...JIJ .J~I lJ..a ~ ui ~jl:l Jot. ~.J~IJ ~~~LP wla~ ~ ~ ~yJI w~\+ll ui ~ Jot. •4 ,.:.. . al\ ~~ ubi j.JI w~ ~ JY' ~~I Lb.Li.JI ~ · ~- 1:.·: ·. A . '" =· . .=.· . • ·:~·:tw ~U..JI o 1 · i ~ jjl \.J'i 1 ~ ···· 1• --~ ~~ •• .).)_J_J •• J .) ('Y-l~ ~~-.?. uts u) ~ ·~·~ o ..foll ~ w , 286 . APPENDIX 5: ANTIQUITIES ORDINANCE No. 51, 1929 (PALESTINE) LAW of PALESTINIAN ARCHAEOLOGY N°; 51, December 31'1 , 1929 Article 1 -This Ordinance may be cited as the Antiquities Ordinance. PART I- INTERPRETATION Article 2- (1) In this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires " Antiquity" includes an historical monument and means (One) any object, whether movable or immovable or a part of the soil, which has been constructed, shaped, inscribed, erected, excavated or otherwise produced or modified by human agency earlier than the year 1700 A.D., to together with any pmt thereof which has at a later date been added, reconstructed or restored; (Two) human and animal remains of a date earlier than the year 600 A.D.; or (Three) any building or construction of a date later than the year 1700 A. D., which the Director may, by order, *declare to be an antiquity; "Board" means the Archaeological Advisoty Board established under section 23; "Dealer" means a person engaged in the business of buying and selling antiquities for the purpose oftrade and "to deal in antiquities" means to engage in such business; "Depattment" means the Depattment of Antiquities; "Director" means the Director of the Depattment; "Historical site" means an area which the Director reasonably believes to contain antiquities or to be associated with important historical events. (2) The decision of the Director whether any object is or not an antiquity within the meaning of this Ordinance shall be final. · PART 11- DISCOVERY OF AND PROPERTY IN, ANTIQUITIES Article 3 - Any person who discovers an antiquity without being fumished with a licence to excavate in accordance with section 6 of this Ordinance shall fotthwith give notice of his discovery to the nearest officer of the Depattment, or to the nearest district officer, or assistant district officer, and shall take any other action that may be prescribed. Article 4- (1) The High Commissioner shall have the right to acquire on behalfofthe Govenm1ent, in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance, any antiquity which may be discovered in Palestine after the date of the commencement of this Ordinance, and, until such right has been renounced in accordance with the provisions of subsection.(2)it shall continue to exist, and no person shall enjoy any right or interest in such antiquity by reason of his being the owner of the land in which the antiquity is discovered or being the finder of the antiquity; nor shall any such person be entitled to dispose of the antiquity; and any person to whom such antiquity is transferred shall have no right or propetty therein. (2) The Director may in writing renounce the right of the High Commissioner to acquire an antiquity under this section. Article 5 - (1) Save as provided in subsection (3), the right of the high conm1issioner to acquire an antiquity under section 4 shall be subject to the payment to the finder of the value 287 . APPENDIX 5: ANTIQUITIES ORDINANCE NO. 51, 1929 (PALESTINE) LAW of PALESTINIAN ARCHAEOLOGY N°. 51, December 3151 , 1929 Article 1 -This Ordinance may be cited as the Antiquities Ordinance. PART I -INTERPRETATION Article 2 - (1) In this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires " Antiquity" includes an historical monument and means (One) any object, whether movable or immovable or a part of the soil, which has been constructed, shaped, inscribed, erected, excavated or otherwise produced or modified by human agency earlier than the year 1700 A.D., to together with any part thereof which has at a later date been added, reconstructed or restored; (Two) human and animal remains of a date earlier than the year 600 A.D.; or (Three) any building or construction of a date later than the year 1 700 A.D., which the Director may, by order, * declare to be an antiquity; "Board" means the Archaeological Advisory Board established under section 23; "Dealer" means a person engaged in the business of buying and selling antiquities for the purpose of trade and "to deal in antiquities" means to engage in such business; "Depai1ment" means the Depa11ment of Antiquities; "Director" means the Director of the Depa11ment; "Historical site" means an area which the Director reasonably believes to contain antiquities or to be associated with impot1ant historical events. (2) The decision of the DirectQr whether any object is or not an antiquity within the meaning of this Ordinance shall be final. PART 11- DISCOVERY OF AND PROPERTY IN, ANTIQUITIES Article 3 -Any person who discovers an antiquity without being fumished with a licence to excavate in accordance with section 6 ofthis Ordinance shall fmthwith give notice of his discovery to the nearest officer of the Department, or to the nearest district officer, or assistant district officer, and shall take any other action that may be prescribed. Article 4 - (1) The High Conm1issioner shall have the right to acquire on behalf of the Govemment, in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance, any antiquity which may be discovered in Palestine after the date of the commencement of this Ordinance, and, until such right has been renounced in accordance with the provisions of subsection.(2)it shall continue to exist, and no person shall enjoy any right or interest in such antiquity by reason of his being the owner of the land in which the antiquity is discovered or being the finder of the antiquity; nor shall any such person be entitled to dispose of the antiquity; and any person to whom such antiquity is transfet1'ed shall have no right or property therein. (2) The Director may in writing renounce the right of the High Commissioner to acquire an antiquity under this section. Article 5- (1) Save as provided in subsection (3), the right of the high cm1m1issioner to acquire an antiquity under section 4 shall be subject to the payment to the finder of the value 287 thereof. (2) Such value shall be fixed by agreement between the Director and the finder or, in default of agreement, by an arbitrator appointed by the Board, whose award shall be final. (3) The high conm1issioner shall not be liable to pay the value of the antiquity of the finder if (One) the discovery of the antiquity was made in contravention of any provision of this Ordinance; or (Two) the Director is ofthe opinion that the antiquity should be preserved in the place where it was found and includes the area within which it was found in the schedule of historical sites for which provision is made section 17; or (Three) the antiquity is acquired as a result of a division made pursuant to section 8 (c) and section 11. PART Ill- EXCAVATIONS Article 6- No person shall dig or othetwise search for antiquities, whether on his own land or else where, unless he has obtained a license to excavate or to make soundings from the High Commissioner. Article 7- A license to excavate shall be granted only (One) who are, in the opinion of the Director, prepared to expend on the excavations proposed a sum of money sufficient to secure a result satisfactmy on archaeological grounds; and (Two) whose scientific competence is reasonably assured by the guarantees of leamed societies or institutions, or in other ways, to the satisfaction of the Director. Provided that no discrimination shall be made on the grounds of nationality or creed in the grant of a license to excavate. Article 8- In addition to any conditions which may be prescribed, every license granted under this part shall be subject to the following conditions (One) ifthe land within which the license is granted is private property. The holder of the license shall anange with the owner as to the terms upon which he may enter upon the land for purposes of excavation; (Two) the holder of the licence. Shall take all reasonable measures for the preservation of the antiquities discovered by him; (Three) at the close of the excavation or at such other times as the Director may require the holder of the license shall afford an oppmiunity to the Director to divide, pursuant to section 11, the antiquities so found by exercising or renouncing the right of the High Commissioner to acquire such antiquities; (Four) the holder of the license shall , within a reasonable time, deposit with the Director any photographs, casts, squeezes or other reproductions, of objects falling to his share in such division which the Director may require; (Five) the holder of the license shall fumish plans of his excavation to the Director and shall, before the division takes place, fumish the Director with lists of all the antiquities discovered therein and any additional information relating thereto which the Director may require; (Six) the holder of the license, or the society or institution on whose behalf he acts, shall deposit with the Director two copies of any preliminary reports which he may publish relating to his excavations; and (Seven) the holder of the license, or the society, or institution on whose behalf he acts, shall 288 produce within a period of two years after the completion of his excavations (unless his period be extended by the Director), an adequate scientific publication of the results of his excavation and shall deposit two copies of such publication with the director. Article 9 - In case of breach of any of the conditions upon which a license to excavate is granted, the Director may forthwith suspend or cancel such license. Article 10- (1) If in the opinion of the High Conunissioner negotiations for the agreement refened to in section 8 (a) upon reasonable terms have failed, the High Conunissioner may, on behalf and at the cost of the holder of the license, expropriate the land in whole or in pati or obtain compulsorily a lease thereof in accordance with the provisions ofthe land (Expropriation) Ordinance. (2) In assessing the compensation to be paid to the owner the comi shall be guided by the value of neigh boring land of a similar character. Article 11- (1) In making the division refened to in section 8 (c), the Director shall acquire for the High Commissioner all antiquities which are in his opinion indispensable for the scientific completeness of the Palestine Archaeological Museum or for the purpose of illustrating the history or ati of Palestine. (2) He shall then make a division of the remaining antiquities aiming as far as possible at giving the holder of the licence a fair share of the results of excavation. (3) in order to make such a division possible, the Director may supplement the share of the holder of the licence by objects which are the property of the government. (4) if such division is in the opinion of the Director impossible, the holder ofthe licence shall be granted such compensation as the Director, with the approval of the high conunissioner, may determine. (5) the cost of transport to the Palestine Archaeological Museum of any antiquity which the high commissioner may acquire in such division shall be borne by public funds . PART IV- EXPORTATION OF ANTIQUITIES Article 12- No person shall expmi from Palestine any antiquity unless he has obtained a licence to export the same from the Director. Article 13- No fee shall be charged on a licence to export in respect of (One) antiquities purchased under section 26; (Two) antiquities renounced by the Director in favour of or granted to, a person holding a licence to excavate; (Three) antiquities impmied into Palestine upon which customs impoti duty has been paid to the Palestine customs and in respect of which evidence to that effect is produced when demanded; (Four) antiquities loaned or exchanged as provided in section 27; (Five) antiquities which are proved to the satisfaction of the Director to be of religious use or devoted to a religious purpose .and to be the propetiy of a religious or ecclesiastical body. Article 14- Any applicant for a license to expmi an antiquity shall, if required by the Director, deposit such antiquity with the Director for the purpose of inspection, declare the Director may require. Article 15- A license to export antiquities shall be produced by the holder to the Palestine Customs on demand. Article 16- The Director may prohibit the expmtation from Palestine of any antiquity the retention of which in Palestine he cdnsiders to be necessary in the public interest: Provide that he shall not prohibit the expmtation (One) any antiquity impmted into Palestine upon which customs impmt duty is proved to have been paid (Two) any antiquity of religious use or devoted to a religious purpose which is being expmted by a religious or ecclesiastical body for a religious or ecclesiastical purpose. PART V- HISTORICAL MONUMENTS AND SITES Article 17 - ( 1) The Director shall publish in the Gazette a schedule of historical monuments and historical sites and may from time to time make additions or amendments thereto (2) Copies of the relevant patts of the schedule shall be exhibited at any post office in the Sub- District in which the historical site is situated. (3) The Director shall have the power to detennine the limits of an historical site. Article 18- No person shall (One) dig to a depth of more that one meter upon any historical site included in a schedule so published or any addition to or amendment of such schedule, unless he has obtained permission from the Director to do so; (Two) excavate, build, plant trees, quatTy, irrigate, bum lime or do similar work or deposit eatth or refuse, on or in the inm1ediate neighbourhood of an historical monument or site, without the permission of the Director; (Three) demolish an historical monument or pull down or remove any part thereof, without the petmission of the Directm: (Four) make alterations, additions or repairs to any historical monument, without the petmission of the Director; (Five) erect buildings or walls abutting upon an historical monument, without the permission of the Director: Provided that paragraphs (d) and (e) shall not apply to historical monuments of religious use or devoted to a religious purpose, which is the propetty of a religious or ecclesiastical body. Article 19- (1) where any historical monument or historical site is registered in the land registers as private property, the Director may (One) make atTangements with the owner for its preservation, inspection and maintenance and may make a contribution, fi·om public funds towards the cost of catTying out any works of repair or conservation which he deems necessary and which the owner may be willing to undettake. Provided that where the Director so contributes towards the cost of carrying out such works they shall be performed subject to any conditions which he may impose; or (Two) Purchase or lease the site by private treaty; or (Three) Acquire the site or obtain compulsorily a lease thereof in accordance with the provisions ofthe land (Expropriation) ordinance; or (Four) In the case of an historical monument, remove the whole or any patt thereof, making good any damage done to the site or to buildings thereon by such removal and paying compensation therefore: 290 Provide that the amount of such compensation shall be fixed by agreement or, in the case of dispute, by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice; and provided that paragraphs (c) and (d) shall not apply to sites or historical monuments of religious use or devoted to a religious purpose which are the prope11y of a ·religious or ecclesiastical body. (2) Where the Director considers that it would be advantageous that a society or institution should undertake the maintenance or conservation of an historical monument or site, he may grant to the society or institution a licence to maintain or conserve such monument or site on such terms and conditions, including provision for the charge of a fee for admission thereto, as may be agreed. Provided that, if the monument or site is wholly or partially private propet1y, the powers bestowed upon the society or institution shall not exceed those bestowed herein upon the Director. (3) In case ofbreach of any of the tem1s or conditions imposed in a licence granted under the preceding subsection, the director may forthwith suspend or cancel such licence. Article 20 - Where an historical site is not registered in the land registers as private propet1y, it may be registered at any time in the name of the High Commissioners if in the opinion of the Director such registration is necessary on archaeological grounds; Provided that the person claiming to be the owner thereof may, subject to the provisions of the land (Settlement of Title) ordinance, institute proceedings at any time for the rectification of the register; and Provided fm1her that this section shall not apply to historical sites of religious use or devoted to a religious purpose, which is the propet1y of a religious or ecclesiastical body. Article 21 -The owner of an historical site shall at all reasonable times petmit any officer of the Depa11ment, and any other person. on behalf of the Director, to enter upon the site to inspect and study the monuments and to make drawings, photographs or reproductions thereof, by the making of casts or by any other method, and to cany out any necessary work for the maintenance or conservation thereof. PART VI- PENALTIES Article 22 - (1) any person who, being the finder of any antiquity, fails to rep011 the antiquity or to take action to protect it or to state the circumstances of the discovery or the origin of the antiquity, or wilfully makes a false statement of such circumstances or such origin, is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for one month or a fine of twenty pounds. (2) Any person who fails to give reasonable facilities to an officer of the govemment to inspect, copy or study an antiquity, where the duty to give such facilities is imposed under this Ordinance, is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of twenty pounds. (3) Any person who, not being the holder of a licence to excavate granted under section 6, digs for antiquities or demolishes any ancient walls or other structures of objects which are antiquities within the meaning of this Ordinance. Whether above or below the ground, even though these acts are done upon land ofwhich he is the owner, is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of two hundred pounds. (4) Any person who, not being the holder of a licence to expm1 granted under section 12, expm1s or attempts to exp011 any antiquity is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for six months or a fine of one hundred pounds or both such penalties. 291 ' (5) Any person who expmts or attempts to export an antiquity of which the exportation has been prohibited in accordance with section 16, is guilty of an offence an is liable to imprisonment for six months or a fine of one thousand pounds or the value of the antiquity whichever is the greater sum. ( 6) Any person who conunits an offence against any of the provisions of section 18 is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of two hundred pounds. (7) Any person who, not being the holder of a licence granted under granted under section 25, deals in antiquities is guilty ofn offence and is liable to imprisonment for six months or a fine of one hundred pounds or both such penalties. (8) Any person who maliciously or negligently destroys, injures, defaces or disfigures any antiquity is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for twelve months or a fine of one hundred pounds or both such penalties. (9) Any person who wilfully deceives or attempts to deceive a purchaser or any officer of the government by any description, statement or other indication as to the genuineness or antiquity of any object of archaeological interest is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for one year or a fine of one hundred pounds or both such penalties. PART VII- MISCELLANCEOUS Article 23- (1) The High Commissioner shall, by order, establish an Archaeological Advisory Board consisting of the Director, who shall be ex officio chairman thereof and such members as the High Commissioner, may nominate to represent archaeological interests. (2) The Director shall not be bound by the advice of the board. Article 24 - Every person in possession of an antiquity shall, at the request of the Director, petmit the same to be inspected and studied at all reasonable times by an officer of the Depattment or other person on his behalf. And shall give to him all reasonable facilities to make drawings, photographs or reproductions thereof by the making of casts or by any other means: Provided that any such drawings, photographs or reproductions shall not be sold without the consent of the person in possession ofthe antiquity. Article 25- No person shall deal in antiquities unless he is in possession of a dealer's licence granted by the Director. Article 26 - The High Conm1issioner may authorize the sale of antiquities which, being the property of the Government, are in the opinion of the Director and the Board, not required for the Palestine Archaeological Museum. Article 27- (1) The Director, with the approval of the High Conunissioner, may make loans or exchanges of any antiquities belonging to the Government to or with learned societies or museums and may authorize the expmtation of such antiquities from Palestine for the purpose. (2) An agreement for a loan under the preceding subsection shall contain adequate provisions for the preservation, assurance and return of the antiquities by and at the cost of the learned society or museum to which the antiquities are lent. 292 Article 28- (1) where it appears that adequate provision is made by the law of any neighboring tetTitory to prevent the imp01iation of antiquities from Palestine othetwise than under licence of the Depatiment, the High Commissioner may issue an order forbidding the imp01i of antiquities from such teiTitory into Palestine othetwise than under a licence granted by the Department of Antiquities in that teiTitory. (2) Any antiquities seized on account of the contravention of such an order shall be retumed to the govemment of the tenitory fi·om which the imp01iation has been attempted. Article 29 -The Director may, with the approval of the High Commissioner, delegate the exercise of any powers possessed by him under this Ordinance to any other officer of the Department. PART VIII- RULES Article 30 - The High Conm1issioner may make rules * (One) excluding any class of antiquities from the operation of this Ordinance or any part thereof; (Two) detem1ining the composition and procedure of the Board, the term during which members shall hold office and the matters upon which the Board shall be consulted by the Director; (Three) determining the conditions upon which licenses to excavate shall be granted; (Four) detennining the conditions upon which licences may be granted to, and held by, dealers and prescribing the fees to be paid therefore; (Five) governing the grant of licences to exp01i antiquities and, subject to the provisions of section 13, the fees to be paid therefore; and (Six) generally, for giving effect to this Ordinance. 293 ') APPENDIX 6: ANTIQUITfES RULES, 1930 (PALESTINE) ANTIQUITIES RULES 151 February, 1930 Article 1 - These rules may be cited as the Antiquities Rules. Article 2- (1) The Archaeological Advisory Board shall be composed of the chaitman and nine members. (2) The members of the Board shall hold office for one year upon nominations, which will be made annually by the High Commissioner. (3) The secretary of the Board shall be an officer appointed by the Director. (4) The director may convene the board by notice in writing posted to each member not less than seven days before the date of meeting. (5) The chairman and tlu·ee members shall fotm a quorum. (6) The minutes of each meeting shall be circulated to all members by the secretaty, and may be published, in whole or in part, at the discretion of the High Commissioner. (7) (I) The Director may, at his discretion, consult the Board on any matter of archaeological or historical importance or interest and shall consult the Board on the following matters (One) applications for licences to excavate; (Two) proposals to sell antiquities which are the property of the Government; (Three) projects for the conservation of historical monuments; (Four) proposed amendments to, or alterations of, the Antiquities ordinance. (II) only archaeological, historical and technical matters shall be within the purview of the board. Article 3- (1) A licence to excavate shall be valid only until the 31st December of the year in which it is issued, unless it is otherwise specially endorsed by the Director. (2) The holders of licences to excavate who desire to continue their excavations after their licences. (3) An application for a licence to excavate or a renewal of such licence shall be made in writing to the Director at least one month before the licence or the renewal is required. (4) Licences to excavate shall be produced on demand to any district or police officer and to any officer of the Depattment. (5) A licence to excavate shall be subject to the following conditions, in addition to those prescribed in Patt Ill of the Ordinance, and to any special conditions contained in the licence, (One) the antiquities found in the course of excavation shall be divided between the Department and the holder of a licence at the end of each season's work; (Two) the holder of the licence shall infonn the Depattment in writing of the date on which he desires the division to be made, not later than fourteen days prior to that date, and shall submit at the same time (I) a complete list of all the antiquities discovered, sufficiently descriptive to make it possible to identify each object and showing the number allotted by each the excavator, such number being legibly written on the object or on a label securely attached to it; and (II) a note explaining the excavator's system of numbering, accompanied by such sketch plans, sections and other information as will provide a record of all architectural remains and of the circumstances attending the discovery of each object, such as position in the excavation, and associated objects; (Tlu·ee) no division shall take place until the information prescribed above has been given, and no license to expott antiquities shall be granted until a division is made: Provided that, if in the opinion of the Director it is necessary for scientific or other reasons to postpone the division, such licence may be granted before the division is made; (Four) the information will not be communicated or published by the depat1ment without the consent of the excavator until a period of two years has elapsed after the close of his excavator until a period of two years has elapsed after the close of his excavations; (Five) the excavator shall not subject antiquities discovered by him in the course of his excavations to any chemical or electrolytic process of cleaning unless he has previously obtained pennission in writing to do so from the Director; Provided that the excavator may employ preservative measures, such as the use of paraffin wax, to consolidate objects. Licenses' dealers in antiquities Article 4- (1) Applications for licenses to deal in antiquities, and for the renewal of licenses to deal in antiquities, shall be made in writing to the director, stating the full name of the applicant and his business address. (2) A license to deal in antiquities shall not be granted for a period exceeding one year. Every such license shall expire upon the first day of April for whatever period it may have been originally granted. A fee of £1 is to be paid for each license. (3) A license to deal in antiquities shall be available for the person to whom it was granted, provided that upon notification to the Department of Antiquities of the death of the licensee and of the names of his heirs or representatives, such heirs or representatives may continue to act under the license for a period not exceeding one month started from the date of the death the licensee. ( 4) A license to deal in antiquities shall authorise the sale of antiquities only at a place specified in the license. ( 5) Any officer of the Department of Antiquities may at all reasonable times inspect the premises with reference to which a dealer's license has been granted, and the licensee shall give him all facilities for examining his entire stock of antiquities and shall fumish any infmmation which he may require conceming such antiquities. (6) The holder of the license is obliged to present the license at the request of any officer of the depat1ment all reasonable times. (7) If the exportation of an antiquity is prohibited under Atiicle 16 of the Antiquities Ordinance, 1929, and such antiquity is the property of a licensed dealer, he shall: (a) lnfmm any purchaser conceming this prohibition, and (b) Communicate to the Director of Antiquities the purchaser's full name and address in Palestine on the day of the sale. (8) The licensed dealer shall infmm evety purchaser of antiquities that it is necessary to obtain a permit to expot1 antiquities and shall exhibit prominently at his place of business, and draw the attention of purchasers to any Notice relating to the exportation of antiquities which the Director of Antiquities may supply for that purpose. (9) A license to deal in antiquities shall be revocable at the discretion of the Director of At1tiquities if in his opinion the licensee has failed to comply with the terms of these Regulations or has othetwise shown himself to be unfit to be a holder of such license. License to expm1 antiquities and the tariff on expot1 Article 5 - (I) Application for license to expot1 antiquities will be made in writing to the director and include the following details : a) List of antiquities with description of each piece so as to recognise it and to know the nature thereof. 295 . b) Declaration of the value of each antiquity. (2) Every applicant for a license to expmt antiquities obliged to provide the director with additional information that might be requested by him that relevant to such antiquities. (3) Prior to issuing of a license to expmt antiquities, the applicant should the depattment tariff on the value of antiquities in accordance with applied classification from time to time. ( 4) Tariff should be paid on export of antiquities that equivalent to 10 percent of the declared value. If the director does not accept such value, the tariff should be calculated on the basis of value decided upon by neutral value judge appointed by council. Prohibition of impmt of antiquities from Syria without license (5) It is prohibited to bring antiquities from Syria or Grand Lebanon to Palestine except that the expmt thereof is licensing by the competent authorities of the expmting country. APPENDIX 7: ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY LAW 5749-1989 (ISRAEL) IAALaw The Law of the Israel Antiquities Authority states that the IAA is the organization responsible for all the antiquities of the country, including the underwater finds . The IAA is authorized to excavate, preserve, conserve and administrate antiquities when necessary. • Chapter One: Interpretation • Chapter Two: The Law and Its Foundations • Chapter Three: The Director of the Authority and its Employees • Chapter Three: Budget and Finance • Chapter Four: Supervision Authority • Chapter Five: Transfening Employees, Assets, Priv • Chapter Six: Various Directives Chapter One: Interpretation Definitions and Interpretations 1. (a) In this Law- "Antiquities Law" refers to the Antiquities Law, 5738-19781; "Site" refers to an antiquities site as it is defined in the Antiquities Law: "the Council" refers to the Council appointed in accordance with paragraph 6; "the Director" refers to the Director or the Council; "the Law" refers to the Law resulting from this legislation; "the Minister" refers to the Minister of Education and Culture. (b) All other tetminology will have the coru1otation that they have in accordance with the Antiquities Law, unless they have been accorded a different meaning in this Law. Chapter Two: The Law and Its Foundations Paragraph One: Establishment of the Authority and Its Functions Establishment of the Authority 2. The Antiquities Authority is established as a result of this Law. The Authority - Corporation 3. The Authority is a corporation. The Authority - a State-controlled body 4. The Authority is a State-controlled body as defined in paragraph 9(2) of the State comptroller Law, 5718-1958 [consolidated version]2. Functions of the Authority 5. (a) The [primary] function of the Authority is to attend to all antiquities' affairs in Israel, including under water antiquities. (b) The Authority may, with respect to the antiquities and sites, undettake any activity to discharge its functions, including- (1) the uncovering and excavation of sites ; (2) the preservation, , restoration and development of sites; (3) the administration, maintenance and operation of sites and their supervision; ( 4) the preservation and restoration of antiquities; (5) establishing supervision over archaeological excavations; (6) the administration ofthe State's treasures for antiquities, their supervision and control ; (7) setting in motion supervision with respect to offences under the Antiquities Law; 297 . (8) preparing archaeological investigations and furthering their progress; (9) preparing, administering and maintaining a scientific library of the archaeological history of Israel and her neighbors; (1 0) the centralization, documentation and cataloguing of archaeological data; (11) the establishment and advancement of educational activities in the field of archaeology; (12) the establishment of international, scientific contacts in the field of archaeology. (b) The administration, maintenance and operation of a site located within the boundaries of a supervised national park or national reserves shall, notwithstanding that which is stated in subsection (b) (3), form part of the National Parks Authority or the Natural Reserves Authority, this in cooperation with the Authority, unless otherwise mutually agreed to. For these purposes, "national park", "natural reserves", "National Parks Authority" and "Natural Reserves Authority" are to be understood in their context under the National Parks, Natural Reserves and National Sites Act, 5723-19633. Paragraph Two: The Authority council The Composition of the Council 6. (a) The Authority shall have a Council composed of sixteen members as follows (1) government representatives who are employees ofthe State; (a) the Director General of the Ministry of Education and Culture; (b) the Head of Cultural Administration in the Ministry ofEducation and Culture; (c) the Director ofEconomic and Budgetary Administration in the Ministry of Education and Culture; (d) the officer-in-charge of budgets in the Ministry of Finance; (e) the Accountant-General; (f) the Director of Planning in the Ministry of the Interior; (g) the Director of the Planning and Economics Branch in the Ministry of Tourism (h) the representative of the Minister of Agriculture to be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. (2) two representatives with archaeological background from two of the institutions of higher learning detailed below, each from a different institution, to be appointed after consultations with the Minister: (a) the Hebrew University in Jemsalem; (b) Tei-Aviv University; (c) Haifa University; (d) Bar-IIan University; (e) the Ben Gurion University of the Negev (3) one member from among the members of the Israeli National Academy of Sciences, to be appointed by the Minister after consultations with the Academy, who will serve as the Council Chaitman; (4) the head of two local municipalities to be appointed by the Minister after consultations with the chairman of the local central government, as well as the head ofthe regional council, to be appointed by the Minister; (5) the director of the museum that will display the antiquities to be appointed by the Minister after consultations with the Chairman of the Museums Council, in accordance with the Museums Act, 5743-19834; (6) representative from the Ministry of Religious Affairs to be appointed by the Minister of Religious Affairs. (a) missing .... . . (b) The government representative, mentioned in subsection (a) (1) (a) to (g), may appoint an alternate who, like himself, is employed by the State to patiicipate in council meetings. (c) Any council member who is not an employee of the State may appoint a petmanent alternate 298 in the same manner as a Council member is appointed. (d) The minister may appoint one of the Council members to deputize as the Council Chairman. Term of Office 7. (a) The tem1 of office of a Council member who is not a government representative shall be for a period of four years; however, he may be reappointed for additional terms; (b) A Council member whose term of office has ended shall continue in office until he is either re-elected or until the appointment of another member in his stead. Guidelines for the Appointment of Council Member 8. The following shall not be appointed as a Council member: (1) anyone charged with a shameful offence or who has been incarcerated prior to the passing of the period of limitation according to its meaning in the Criminal Registration Act and the measure for the benefit of repentant offenders, 5741-1981 5 (2) anyone who has a conflict of interest with respect to his business affairs and his membership in the Council; however, there will not be conflict of interest where the actual appointment of an individual to the Council comes as a result of his responsibility. Reimbursement of Expenses 9. The Council chairman, his deputy and any Council member shall not accept any remuneration from the Authority for services rendered as part of their duties on the Council; however, they may claim coverage for reasonable expenses incuned as part of their duties on the Council , in an amount established by the Authority. Expiration of a Term of Office 10. (a) A council member who is not a government representative shall tenninate his te1m of office at the appointed time if:-- (1) a letter of resignation is tendered to the Council Chairman; (2) any of the conditions cited in paragraph 8 are breached; (3) he is unable, on a consistent basis, to discharge his duty and the Minister, after consultation with the Council Chainnan, will remove him from his position through written notification; (4) he retires from the position to which he was appointed. (b) The Council Chairman shall provide to the Minister the letter of resignation, as mentioned in subsection (a) (1), within 96 hours of receiving [said letter]. The resignation goes into force 48 hours after handing over the letter of resignation to the Minister, except when the Council member retracts his resignation in writing to the Minister. (c) A Council member who is not a government representative, or a representative who is an employee of the State who was appointed to pmticipate permanently in Council sittings as mentioned in subsection 6(b), and who is absent for an unjustifiable reason from four consecutive Council meetings, may be removed from his position in the Council by the Minister after consultation with the Council Chairman, or his appointment may be nullified, according to the circumstance, through written notification. The Duty Rosters of the Council 11. (a) The Council shall establish for itself its own work routines and the administration of its deliberations inasmuch as these have not been established by this Law or pursuant to it. (b) The legal quorum for Council meetings is at least seven members. If there was no legal quorum at the commencement of the meeting, the Council Chairman may postpone the meeting by thi1ty minutes. After this time has passed, the meeting shall be considered to be in session if 299 there are at least five participating members, the Council Chai1man or his deputy being counted among them. (c) Once the meeting has duly commenced in accordance with subsection (a), the meeting shall duly continue with as many members as there are present. (d) the Director, or whoever has been deputized in his place, may be present at Council meetings. Deliberation on a Given Subject 12. If the Minister or five Council members wish to table a ce1iain topic, the topic should be made part of the order paper for the next Council meeting. Appointing a Subcommittee 13. The Council may appoint members to fmm a subcommittee, to establish a Chairman as part of its authority, to lessen the authority to establish general Council policy and the authority to approve its budget. Authority 14. A decision ofthe Council or one of its subcommittees shall not be disqualified except where the seat of the Council member or the subc011U11ittee member was vacant, for whatever reason, at the time that the decision was made. Council Duties and Authorities 15. The Council, without detracting from its other duties, shall- (1) establish the general [operating] policies of the Authority in the area of duties; (2) approve the budget of the Authority; (3) follow up on policy implementation, the programs and budgets of the Authority; ( 4) deliberate over the financial repmis provided to it by the Director. General Council Rules 10. The Council, with the approval of the Minister, shall establish general rules for the operation of the sites, their administration and supervision. Report 16. The Council shall provide to the Minister, at least once a year, a repmi on the activities of the Authority, and shall likewise provide to him, at his request, any information of its activities. Chapter Three: The Director of the Authority and its Employees 18. (a) The Council shall appoint, based on the advice of the Minister and with the approval of the government, a Director of the Authority. The Council may, based on the advice of the Minister, appoint a deputy Director. (b) The elections subcommittee, as stated in subsection (a), shall be published in Reshumot. The Authority of the Director 19. (a) The Director is responsible for the uninterrupted administration of the Authority's dealings accordance with the decisions of the Council. (b) Subject to the directives [outlined] in this Law, as well as the decisions of the Council, the Director shall have all of the authority necessary for the administration of the Authority, including the authority to represent the Authority in any of its duties, to sign agreements or other documents in the name of the Authority. (c) The directives in this Law do not detract from the authority and duties granted to the Director by the Antiquities Law or any other enactment. 300 (d) The Director may, according to this Law, delegate some of his authority to an employee of the Authority and to authorize this employee to sign any document in the name of the Authority. Appointing the Director 20. (a) The Director shall be appointed for a period of five years (hereafter: tetm of office). The Council, with the approval of the Minister and the govemment, may re-elect the Director for an additional tetm of office at the conclusion of the current tenn. (b) The term ofthe Director shall tetminate with one of the following: (1) the Director resigns by letter; he presents the letter to the Minister through the agency of the Council; (2) the Minister, after consultation with the Council and with the approval of the govemment, establishes that the director cannot, in a petmanent manner, discharge his duties; (3) the Minister, after consultation with the Council and with the approval of the govemment, decides to remove him from his position for reasons that shall be detailed. The Employment of Workers 21. (a) the Authority may engage workers to implement its policies; (b) the conditions of employment of Authority workers, remuneration, service lists and methods of selection for work shall be the same as those of govemment employees, with those changes that have been set by the Authority with the approval of the Minister and the Minister of Finance. Terms of the Director's Employment 22. The remuneration for the Director and the terms of his employment shall set by the Minister with the approval of the Minister of Finance. Budget 23. (a) The Director shall prepare, at an interval set by the Council, a budgetary proposal for the activities of the authority and shall present it for approval to the Council; (b) The budget for the Authority shall be presented to the Minister and requires the approval of both the Minister and the govemment. (c) The Minister of Finance may direct the Authority in any matter that relates to the preparation of the Authority's budget. Chapter Three: Budget and Finance Finance and Capital 24. (a) The budget of the Authority shall be financed from the treasury of the State, as well as from fees and other payments to be paid to the Authority in accordance with the Antiquities Law. (b) So that the Authority can discharge its duties, the Authority may accept donations and may likewise establish research funds. Chapter Four: Supervision Authority The Appointment of Inspectors 25. (a) The Council shall appoint inspectors from among Authority employees or from among those who have been legally appointed as inspectors. It can also choose an individual who has been appointed an inspector by the enactment of a law for the purpose of supervising the implementation of the antiquities Law. The appointment shall be in writing. (b) It is understood that the inspector shall have the authority to conduct investigations conceming offences against the Antiquities Law. It is understood that in using this authority 301 · -(1) the inspector shall have the authority of a police officer in according with paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code (An·est and Search) [New Version], 5729-19696. (2) The inspector may utilize all of the authority allocated to a police officer at the rank of inspector in accordance with paragraph 2 or the Order of Criminal Procedure (Testimony)7, and paragraph 3 of the aforementioned Order shall be effective [ ] registered as a result of this authority. The Authority of the Inspector 26. (a) Should the inspector have a probable basis upon which to assume that the matter requires him to operate under the authority assigned to him, he has the authority to - (1) stop any vehicle and conduct a search; (2) enter any place and conduct a search; however, he may not enter a place that serves as a place in which people live provided there is a search wan-ant from an authorized comt, and paragraphs 24 and 26-29 of the Order of the Criminal Code (an-est and Search) [New Version], 5729-1969, will be in effect, with the necessary changes, with respect to a search conducted according to this clause; (3) seize any object if the inspector has a probable cause to believe that an offence that violates the Antiquities Law was committed with it, and he may seize packing material or documents which, in his judgment, may be entered as evidence in a trial for and offence noted above. (b) Insofar as this chapter is concerned, "object" includes any vehicle of conveyance. Chapter Five: Transferring Employees, Assets, Priv Transferring Employees 27. (a) Employees of the State who are employed in the Antiquities and Museums Department in the Ministry of Education and Culture (hereafter: the Department) on the eve of the commencement of this Law, shall be transfetTed to serve as employees of the Authority under tetms of service that are not worse than those in effect prior to the Law being in force. (b) The benefits of Authority employees that have been transferred and those that stem from their work as employees of the State, as mentioned in subsection (a), shall be considered as benefits that stem from work in the service of the Authority. (c) Settlements regarding the entitlement of the Authority to disbursement amounts that shall be transfened to its service shall be allowed and will be set within one year of the conm1encement of this Law in an agreement between the Authority and the government. Transferring of Assets 28. Assets of the State that were, prior to the commencement of this Law, maintained by the Department, shall be transferred to the Authority. In this paragraph, "assets of the State" refer to real estate, moveables, entitlements and vested interests of every manner, with the exception of antiquities and sites. Conditions of transfer shall be set in an agreement between the Authority and the government. Chapter Six: Various Directives Taxes 29. The Law of the Authority has the same force as the law of the State with respect to the remittance of taxes, the stamp tax, fees [for government or other public services] , probable taxes, levies and other mandatmy payments. Damage Liability 302 -30. The law of the Authority has the same force as the law of the State with respect to the Law of Civil Damages (Liabilities of the State), 5712-19528. Rules Concerning Council Members and Employees of the Authority 31. (a) The law for employees of the Authority has the same force as the law for employees of the State with respect to the following enactment: (1) Knesset Election Act [New Version], 5729-19699; (2) State Service Act (Classification of Patty Activities and Fundraising), 5719-19591 0; (3) Public Service Act (Gratuities), 5740-197911; (4) Public Service Act (Restrictions at Retirement), 5729-196912; (5) Penalties Act, 5737-197713- directives pettaining to public employees; (6) Testimonies Order [New Version], 5731-197114; (7) Damages Order [New Version] 15; (b) The State Service Act (Discipline), 5723-196316, shall apply to employees f the Authority as though they were employees of the State. In this regard, the Minister of Education and Culture is synonymous with the Minister wherever Minister is mentioned in this Law, and the Director is synonymous with the Director General wherever Director is mentioned in this Law. Implementation and Regulations 32. The Minister is appointed to implement this Law and he may, after consultation with the Director and Council, enact regulation with respect to implementation. Amendments to the Antiquities Law 33. In the Antiquities Law- ( 1) In paragraph 1 - (a) after the definition of"sites of antiquities" should come" " "The Authority"- the Antiquities Authority as understood in the Antiquities Authority Law, 5749-1989"; (b) in the definition of"collector" read "who had a collection" instead of "who collects"; (c) strike the definition of "the Depmtment"; (d) in place of the definition of "the Director" read" "the Director"- Director of the Antiquities; (2) in paragraph 8, after "the Director" read "with the approval of the Minister"; (3) in paragraph 14, instead of "after consultation" read "with the approval of the Minister and after consultation; (4) in paragraph 15, instead of"the Director" read "the Minister" and at the conclusion read: "The Minister may authorize the Director or any other employee of the Authority regarding the issue raised in this paragraph":; (5) in paragraph 18(a), in place of"the Director" read "the Minister or an individual who has been authorized in accordance with paragraph 15"; (6) in paragraph 34(b), after "to the Minister" comes "to the Director and to the Council of the Authority"; (7) in paragraph 36- (a) in subsection (a), in place of"from the decisions of the Director" read "from the Director"; (b) in place of subsection (b) read: (b) the appeal board may decide to accept an appeal, defer it or decide with respect to any other decision; (8) in paragraph 42, in subsection (a) (1) in place of"the Depmtment" read "the Authority" and in subsection (c) after "the Minister", read "according to the suggestion of the Authority"; (9) in paragraph 44, in place of"in the Council" read "with the Director, with the council ofthe Authority and with the Council"; (10) in 46(a), after "may" read "after consultation with the Director and the Council of the -Authority" and after "licenses" read "approvals, permits or services"; (11) after paragraph 46 read: Revenues Accruing to the Authority 46a. Fees and other revenues, with the exception of fines, collected as a result of this Law, shall be paid to the treasury of the Authority". Amendment to the [ ] Order 34. In the [ ] Order17 - (1) I paragraph 2, in place of the definition for "an historical site" read: " "an historical site"- a site of antiquities as it is understood in the Antiquities Law, 5738-1978"; (2) in paragraph 8(1) (a) (2), I place of"the Director ofthe Antiquities Depa11ment" read "the Director as understood in the Antiquities Authority Law, 5749-1989". Observance of the Law 35. Subject to paragraph 5(c), the directives in this Law cannot detract from the directives in the National Parks, National Reserves and National Sites Act, 5723-1963. Transition Directives 36. (a) Anyone appointed as Director of the Department prior to the commencement of this Act shall be considered as if he were appointment as Director according to the Act for a term of office as at the day that the Act came into force. (b) The govemment shall pass to the Authority all of the amounts budgeted for in the Budget Act for the cunent fiscal year for those activities of the Department whose implementation was passed to the Authority and for which there has not been an expenditure until this Act came into force. Until the end ofthe cuJTent fiscal year, the budget ofthe activities of the Authority will be in accordance with the budget passed to the Authority, as previously stated, with changes stemming from the establishment of the Authority. In this case, "the current fiscal year" refers to the fiscal year in which this Act comes into force. Publication 37. This Act will be published in Reshumot within 30 day of its acceptance. Chaim Herzog President of the State Footnotes Yitzhak Shamir Prime Minister Yitzhak Navon Minister of Education and Culture * passed by the Knesset on the 21st day of Tanunuz (July 24, 1989); the Bill and Explanatory Note were published in Hatza'ot Chok 1926 of7 Nisan 5749 (April 12, 1989), p. 67. 1. Sefer Ha-Chukkim 5738, p. 76. 2. Sefer Ha-Chukkim 5718, p. 92. 3. Sefer Ha-Chukkim 5723, p. 149; 5742, p. 34. 4. Sefer Ha-Chukkim 5743, p. 113. 5. Sefer Ha-Chukkim 5741. p. 322. 6. Laws of the State oflsrael, New Version 12, p. 284. 7. [ ], vol. I, p. 439. 8. Sefer Ha-Chukkim 5712, p. 339. 9. Sefer Ha-Chukkim 5729, p. 103. 10. Sefer Ha-Chukkim 5719, p. 190. 11. Sefer Ha-Chukkim 5740, p. 2. 12. Sefer Ha-Chukkim 5729, p. 114. 13. Sefer Ha-Chukkim 5737, p. 226. 304 14. Laws of the State oflsrael, New Version 10, p. 421. 15 . Laws of the State oflsrael, New Version 5, p. 266. 16. Sefer Ha-Chukkim 5723, p. 50. 17. [ ], Vol. II, p 910. · 305 APPENDIX 8: 5TH DRAFT LAW CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE LAW, 2003 (THE PA) 5TH DRAFT LAW CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE LAW NO. ( ) FOR THE YEAR ( ) Chairman of the PLO Executive Authority Chairman of the Palestinian National Authority Based on the powers vested in him, in accordance with the provisions of Article ( 41) of the Amended Basic Law After reviewing The Ancient Antiquities Law, Title 5, For the Year 1929, and The Hunting Law, Title 64, For the Year 1924, And The Forestry Law, Title 61, For the Year 1926, together· with their amendments, and the implementing regulations issued accordingly, and which are applied in Gaza Strip, And After reviewing the Ancient Antiquities Law, No. 51, For the Year 1966, and The Temporary "provisional" Palestinian Antiquities Museum Law, No. 72, For the Year 1966,and The Forestry and Woodland Law, For the Year 1927, And The Water Control Law, No. 31, For the Year 1953, And The Trees and Plants' Maintenance Law, No. 85, For the Year 1966, together with their amendments, and the implementing regulations issued accordingly, and which are applied in the West Bank, And After reviewing the Protection of Livestock Law, No. 8, For the Year 1998, and The Environment Law, No. 7, for the Year 1999, And The Water Law, No. 3, For the Year 2002, together with their amendments, and the implementing regulations issued accordingly, and which are applied in the territories of the Palestinian National Authority, And After the Approval of the Legislative Council, in its plenary session held on We have issued the following Law: 306 Chapter One: Definitions Article 1 Definitions Unless stipulated otherwise the following terms and expressions under this Law shall have the meanings indicated below: National Authority: The Palestinian National Authority Commission: Cultural and Natural Heritage Conm1ission Chair: Chair ofthe General Commission of Heritage, or ........... .. Board of Directors: Board of Directors for Cultural and Natural Heritage National or Local Cultural Heritage: Movable and immovable Heritage of historical, architectural, archeological, religious, attistic, aesthetic, ethnographic, documentary great significance (national Heritage) or serious significance (local Heritage), which are more than fifty years old. National or Local Natural Heritage: Natural features consisting of physical and biological fotmations or groups of such formation, which demonstrate natural great significance (national Heritage) or serious significance (local Heritage). It also means geological and physiographical fom1ations , and specifically, delineated areas that constitute the habitat of indigenous species of animals and plants, which demonstrate natural significance, or fom1ations which demonstrate natural significance from the point of view of science, conservation, or natural beauty. Cultural Heritage Movable Cultural Heritage Objects, at least fifty years old, that people create. They can be artistic, archeological, technological, natural in origin, and can be considered as having aesthetic, historic, social significance, or other special value, for future generations, as well as for the present community, regardless of size, number, material or method of creation. Objects left by older civilization or previous generations, whether found in/on the land or in the sea. Objects which have been made as a separate entity from the land or historical buildings, and which have been relocated and moved from sites or monuments, i.e. mosaic sections, frescos, colunms, etc. They include documents and manuscripts. They may include: objects associated with Palestinian cultural Heritage, archeological objects, natural science objects, objects of applied science 307 Immovable Cultural Heritage: Monuments: or technology, objects of fine and decorative arts, objects of documentary Heritage, manuscripts, coins, and title deeds. Immovable Cultural Heritage includes monuments, historic centers in towns and villages, archeological sites, cultural landscapes, which are more than fifty years old. Components of immovable cultural Heritage shall not be limited only to these categories. Buildings, structures or elements, consisting of architectural work, monumental sculptures, archeological or engineering structures, including surrounding, fixtures and fittings, whose conservation is in the public interest nationally, regionally, locally, provided that they are of historical, archeological, artistic, and scientific interests, and that they are more than fifty years old. Historical Cities And Villages: Group of separate or connected buildings, or parts of them as groups of buildings or quatters, and includes monuments, archeological sits, and/or natural sites, which because of their coherence, homogeneity, their place in the landscape, architecture form a topographically definable unit, are of historical, attistic/aesthetic, archeological, scientific, or social significance, which constitute a local , regional, national, or human value, and are more than fifty years old. Archeological Sites: Abandoned or ruined stmctures or patts thereof, and any addition thereto, and layers of soil piled on them that contain associated stmctures, attifacts, and other residues, that are man-made. Sites include also, sub- water archeological structures (which are more than fifty years old), and which lend themselves to study by archeological methods, which they have been excavated or not. Therefore, such sites consist of both inunovable and movable Heritage, such as monuments, man-made structures, stratigraphical features and movable objects. Cultural Landscapes: Delineate topographical patt of a landscape that has been fom1ed by the interaction of mankind and nature. It reflects the picture of evolution, stability, and features of human society in time and places, and which eamed social a~d cultural values in various layers of soil, due to the presence of material residues, which reflect the previous uses of land, the activities on which took place, as well as skills and Heritage. It also includes landscapes that have been pottrayed in literaty and artistic work, or which historical events took place on them. Heritage Inventory List: A preliminary list of places with potential or known Heritage significance. Conversation Plan: A document which details how to look after the cultural, natural significant Heritage values of a place. It can be pmt of a broader management plan. 308 Intervention Plan: Natural Areas: Registration: Detailed protections plan for individual monuments and buildings. An area identified as having significant or unique natural Heritage features. Is the process through which the Heritage is studied and its significance assessed by the competent Authorities. Heritage List or Registry: A List that includes all Heritage whose serious (local Heritage) or great (national Heritage) significance have been positively assessed by the competent Authorities and therefore benefit from protection under this Law. Archeological Survey: An organized scientific induction of earth surface, which aims at discovering and studying archeological sites and monuments. Archaeological Objects: Definition to be provided Restoration: Imitations "Mimics: Perimeter Surrounding Belt: · Search Excavation: The process of repairing damages that inflect cultural Heritage, which resulted from human or natural factors, and restore it to an appropriate status or to the original status as closely as possible. Non-original objects which imitates genuine and original ones, and made for conm1ercial or memorabilia purposes. The atea that surrounds the protected Heritage, which is subject to special regulatory provisions, and where its boundaries appear within the protection plan. A scientific activity conducted by qualified archeologists, for the purpose of discovering the history of a specific site, in accordance with a specific methodology. Search excavation can occur on the surface, few centimeters deep, or few meters under the surface of the ground. Accidental discovery of archeology, and unlicensed excavations shall not be considered as search excavation. Announcement Committee: (to be deleted or revised) A COI1ID1ittee which grants approval to announce historical cities and villages center, monuments, sites, and movables, after consultation with the National Heritage Council? Planning Committee: (to be deleted or revised) A committee that has the right to approve the protection and restoration plans, prepared by the Heritage Commission, and/or Planning Councils, and/or special plmming agencies, after consultation with the Heritage Council? Approval shall be given also by the Higher Planning Council. Natural Significance: Means the significance of environmental systems, 309 Environmental, And geological diversity, for their aesthetic and artistic value, for the present or future generations, in tetms of their social, scientific and aesthetic values. Geological Diversity: The natural scope (diversity) has geological, geomorphic, and educational features, systems, and accumulations. Geological diversity includes proofs of animals, environmental system, and previous environment, in the history of land, as well as a group of aerial, water, and organic processes which cun·ently affect rocks, soil, and natural monuments. Site: Species: Conservation Plan: Ecosystem: Site, or a defined geographical area, and its natural monuments that is associated with geological and environmental diversity, and envir01m1ental process. The lowest principal unit of biological classification formally recognized as a group of organisms distinct from other groups. In sexually reproduced organisms, "species" is more narrowly characterized as a group of organisms that in natural conditions freely interbreed with members of the same group but not with members of other groups. Natural Heritage A document which details how to look after the natural and/or cultural Heritage value of a place. It can be part of a broader management plan. An ecosystem is a multi-scale unit, which consists of living organisms and physical environment, to include non-living sulTounding, as well as the relations and interactions among the living organisms themselves, and between them and the physical environment sulTounding them. Further, the ecosystem includes the living organisms, and the total complex (physical) natural and chemical factors fanning the environment. Environmental Process: All process that occur between living organisms and the environmental conm1unities, to include interaction of dead environment, which contributes towards shaping the existing ecosystem, and changes ecosystems by time. Biodiversity: The variability among living organisms from all sources "including telTestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part", and includes diversity within and between species and the diversity of ecosystems. Environmental Impact Study: A study prepared in accordance with established procedures to identify and assess the impacts of development on a patticular significant natural Heritage feature. 310 ' National Park: Threatened Species: Vulnerable Species: Endemic Species: Indigenous Species: Extrinsic Species: Global Rank (GRANK): An area dedicated to protect natural environment, flora and fauna as well as distinct landscape. They have scientific, historic and architecture values, and provides enjoyment and recreation for the population. Any indigenous species offauna or flora that on the basis of the best available scientific evidence, is indicated to be threatened with inunediate extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events. Vulnerability is a global scale either because it is very rare, or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extinction or elimination. Species occurring and existing naturally in Palestine, including self introduced species, but not man introduced ones. The species that exists in a location within its natural and !mown range from the historical aspect, and with constitutes part of the natural environmental diversity of the site. Transferred or foreign species in a location outside its known natural range, which resulted from accidental or deliberate distribution. Classification assigned to designate a rarity rank based on the range-wide status of species, subspecies or variety. The most important factors considered in assigning global ranks are the total number of known, extant sites worldwide, and the degree to which they are potentially or actively threatened. National Rank (NRANK): The national conservation status rank of an element. Provincial Rank (SRANK): Improvement: Maintenance: Adjustment A classification that is less than the National Rank. Provincial Ranks are used to set protection priorities for rare species and natural communities. Provincial ranks are assigned in a manner similar to that described for global ranks, but consider only those factors within the administrative boundaries of an area. Introducing living organisms, ethnic models, additional species, environmental elements, or element that are distracted biologically, to those which exist naturally in a certain location. Continuous preventive care of environmental and geological diversity of a ce1tain location. Adjusting a location so that it fits proposed utilities, which are compatible with the natural significance of the location. 311 Control: Natural Safety: Conservation: Renewal: Return: Restoration: General Protection Of Museums: Continuous review, evaluation and assessment to discover changes to natural safety of a certain location, by referring to a basic status. The degree that a location or an environmental system retain its environmental, geological, and natural diversity, and its other processes and natural characteristics. Conservation of enviro1m1ental diversity of a location in the cunent stage for breeding, or to conserve the cunent geological diversity. Natural improvement of natural safety after being disturbed or deteriorated. Introduction of one or more species, environmental elements, or endemic "inherent" geological diversity to a location which is known that such elements existed naturally in it in the past, but does not exist any more now. Restoration of the cunent environment to a status that is known in the past, or approximately to the natural status, by repairing damages, removing foreign species, or returning endemic "inherent" species. 1. NB : A GREAT NUMBER OF THESE DEFINITIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE DELETED Section I Chapter Two: General Provisions Scope and Objectives of the Law; International Law Article 2 Scope of the Law The provisions of this Law shall apply on the cultural and natural Heritage in Palestine Within the definitions of cultural and natural Heritage referred to in Aiticle 1, the scope of application of this Law includes inter alia : Cultural Heritage : 1. Movable Heritage 2. Immovable cultural Heritage, which cannot be easily divided and relocated. It includes: a. Monuments b. Sites (such as archeological sits, and cultural landscapes.) c. Historical cities and villages centers 312 Natural Heritage: 1. Sites of natural Heritage (areas) 2. Types of natural Heritage: a. Animal species (Fauna) b. Plants species (Flora) -plants cover Birds species Insects species (NB : c, and d, should fall under a) Article 3 Objectives of the Law This Law aims at enhancing and ensuring the protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage in Palestine which belongs to the Palestinian people, in full respect of private ownership. Article 4 International Law and the present Law All international conventions, protocols and covenants related to Heritage, to which Palestine is party, shall be an integral pa11 of this Law. Section II Protection of any Heritage Article 5 Protection of Heritage Notwithstanding the distinction between "national" or "local" Heritage, any Heritage classified under this Law is subject to the following: 1. Protection and maintenance ofHeritage is a conm1Unity and official responsibility. 2. Destruction, damages, whether voluntary or by negligence, abuse, vandalism or aggression against Heritage shall result in legal responsibility. 3. The propet1y or acquisition of land or real estates, does not give the owner the right to benefit from, use and dispose of, the Heritage that exists on its surface, inside or under it, except to the extent permitted under this Law. 4. The Commission shall : a. take the necessary measures, and be responsible for, to conduct survey, evaluation, search, excavations, restoration, classification and registration as refened to in Alticle 7, control and protection of Heritage in accordance with the provisions of this Law. b. endeavor to retrieve Heritage in case of loss or disappearance; its owner or possessor is to inform the Conunission about these events and cover the retrieval expenses, undertaken by the Authorities, if such loss or disappearance was 313 ° caused by his/her negligence. The owner or the possessor is entitled to receive the object after, if applicable, paying such expenses. c. respect the Heritage of other nations, and promote therefore intemational agreements with the relevant foreign administrative bodies. 5. Any excavation of Heritage is subject to Atticles .. .... (infra) Article 6 Licenses and Works related to Heritage 1. Any work mentioned below related to immovable Heritage requires a prior license from the Conm1ission : a- Digging b- Excavation and survey works c- leveling and partitioning works d- pattial and total demolition works e- Restoration, maintenance and support works f- Addition works g- Infra structure works h- Billboard and poster placement works 1- Garbage and dumping works J- Trade and export works k- Investment works 1- Imitation works m- purchase and sales works n- imitation works o- changing premises or moving p- museum and exhibition works q- any other works the Commission deems necessary to subject to licensing 2. Licenses are granted under these conditions: a. a protection plan ofthe Heritage areas is provided; b. a protection plan for movable Heritage is provided, including restoration, maintenance, preservation as well as a plan for the special environment of possessions; c. works are to be conducted in full compliance with the instructions and the time limit of the license provided by the competent Authorities, and under supervision by the Commission; d. all applicable fees and expenses are paid; e. the time limit may be extended only by the Head of the Commission upon a decision by the administrative board f. Requests for licenses shall be submitted on fom1s designed for this purpose. g. Granted or denied licenses shall be kept in a special register supervised by the Commission. Infmmation on the date, reasons, conditions and patticular observations if any of the decision is included. h. The Conm1ission shall grant licenses to foreigners who catTy out the works after the approval of the council of Ministers on behalf of the panel. Article 7 314 Registration of "national" or "local" Heritage and its consequences 1. All cunent owners, possessors, holders and occupants of Heritage bring it to the attention ofthe Commission (national Heritage) or of its local Branches (local Heritage), within 90? Or 180? days from the day of entry into force of this Law, to have this Heritage assessed; the Commission and/or its local Branches undertake such an assessment also on their own initiative; 2. Pending such an assessment and subsequent registration, the Commission may grant "temporary protection for emergency situations"; 3. Where the competent Conm1ission and/or its local Branches deem the definition of Heritage and its thresholds of significance fulfilled with regard to a the Heritage submitted to their attention, they classify it and register it as "national" or "local" Heritage for the purposes of this Law, on their initiative or on request of the interested patiy; 4. Following the registration : Section Ill a. the decision is published in the official gazette and in the office of the concemed local council (delete cunent Ati.85) b. the owner(s) and the possessor are infonned (of the administrative decision and its legal consequences) to the maximum extent compatible with their number and presence in Palestine' s territories : amended current A1i.60, 2; c. specifically for irru11ovables : 1. the decision may extend, where appropriate, to surrounding or adjacent areas within 200 meters from the boundaries of the Heritage concemed; the Commission, depending on the circumstances, may reduce or extend the 200 meters distance; ii. the decision is published in the land register on Commission's request; 111. a specific sign is installed National Heritage (or "Heritage of national significance'? Article 8 Obligations to protect national Heritage for its current owners, possessors, holders and occupants 1. Such Heritage can not be alienated (freely disposed of) and therefore traded. However, it can be transfe1Ted to the Palestine National Authorities; 2. Such Heritage is not subject to non-derivative acquisition through possession ("prescription acquisitive" in French) 3. Such Heritage can not be used in a manner, or for purposes, inconsistent with the Law 4. To ensure maintenance for proper conservation of such Heritage (National Authorities provide technical and financial assistance : to an extent to be defined) 5. Permanent expmi of such Heritage is prohibited 6. Temporary expmt of such Heritage is limited to 12 months, extensible to a maximum of 3 years where appropriate, for conservation or exhibition purposes. Exportation must be accompanied by a specific export ce1iificate. 315 Article 9 Prerogatives of the Commission and of the Palestinian National Authorities with regard to National Heritage 1. In addition to the prerogatives refeiTed to in Article 5, the Conm1ission shall have: a. the right to temporarily seize, as well as to expropriate the Heritage, for the public interest, in return of a fair compensation. An appeal against such a decision is granted. b. the right ofpreemption to purchase Heritage, ifthe owner desires to sell it, in accordance with applicable procedures. 2. The Palestinian National Authority shall work towards retrieving all national Heritage, which has been taken out, stolen, smuggled outside Palestine, through use of all political, diplomatic, and legal means, as well as moral grounds . Section IV Local Heritage (or "Heritage of local significance'') Article 10 Obligations to protect local Heritage for its current owners, possessors, holders and occupants 1. Archaeological objects (definition to be provided in Article 1) can not be alienated (freely disposed of) and therefore traded. However, they can be transferred to the Palestine National Authorities; 2. Local Heritage is, not subject to non-derivative acquisition through possession ("prescription acquisitive" in French) 3. The Conm1ission shall put in place a trade authorization system in local cultural Heritage specifying the requirements, procedures, authorization fees, eligible persons, and establishing the registers of cultural Heritage authorized for trade. 4. Subject to such prior authorization, which is granted on a year basis, renewable annually and withdrawn in case of violation of this Law, by the competent authorities where appropriate and with a patticular view to avoiding its parcellisation, local Heritage may be alienated (freely disposed of) under the conditions that: a. the owner informs the Conm1ission about his/her intention to alienate or sell it, the name and address ofthe buyer, about it 60 days before the date ofthe sale. Otherwise, the alienation or the sale may be void. In any event, the Commission reserves its priority right for the purchase of such Heritage; b. artistic pieces, old objects, numismatics, icons or any other Heritage items be accompanied with the relevant local Heritage certificate; therefore, in the absence of such a cettificate, the sale or alienation is void. 5. Local Heritage can not be used in a manner, or for purposes, inconsistent with the Law 6. Obligations to ensure proper conservation of such Heritage (local branches of the Conm1ission provide technical and financial assistance: to an extent to be defined) 7. Pennanent exp01t of local Heritage is prohibited 316 8. Temporary expmt of local Heritage is limited to a maximum of 5 years (?) for conservation or exhibition purposes (and other purposes where appropriate). Expmtation must be accompanied by a specific expmt cettificate. Article 11 Prerogatives of the local branches of the Commission with regard to local Heritage 1. In addition to the prerogatives referred to in Atticle 5, the Conunission shall have: a. the right to temporarily seize, as well as to expropriate the Heritage in special situations and where appropriate for the public interest, in return of a fair compensation. An appeal against such a decision is granted. b. the right ofpreemption to purchase Heritage, if the owner desires to sell it, in accordance with applicable procedures. 2. If the Conunission endorses the request of its local branch, the Palestinian National Authority shall work towards retrieving all local Heritage, which has been taken out, stolen, smuggled outside Palestine, through use of all political, diplomatic, and legal means, as well as moral grounds. Chapter Three: Special Forms of Protection Section I Museums Article 12 Establishing museums Museums of all types shall be established including libraries for manuscripts, specialized exhibition halls upon a decision by the Heritage Conunission and according to procedures stated in the private by-laws. Article 13 Museum activities Museum administrations shall undettake the following: 1. Prepare special lists of assets and Heritage items, classify them, preserve and protect them and facilitate processes for the public and the expett researchers to look at. 2. Spread awareness, education and culture and increase interest in Heritage in coordination and cooperation with the competent patties. Article 14 Exchanging Heritage possessions Museums, each with its own specialty, shall exchange Heritage items for limited periods oftime according to specific rules and regulations that safeguard their preservation and protection. 317 . Article 15 The unit of restoration and maintenance Every museum shall establish a special unit for restoration and maintenance to preserve the assets of the museum according to related rules and regulations . Sectiou II Preservation Plans for Immovable Heritage Article 16 The preservation plan The preservation plan for inunovable Heritage, as monuments and sites, including the surrounding or adjacent areas, is: 1. prepared by the Commission : 1. with the contribution of specialized and qualified experts; ii. taking into account the surrounding geographical features and the natural areas; 111. within a reasonably shott period of time since the date of registration and publication of the Heritage concemed refened to in atticle 7. The registration is to reconsidered, canceled where appropriate, if a long period expires without the issuance of a preservation plan 2. indicates the directives of protection according to this Law 3. includes a list oftetms of reference to properly perform the proposed activity and an analytical assessment of the cunent state of the immovable intended for restoration Article 17 Implementing preservation plans 1. Once the preservation plan is adopted, the implementation of the intervention plan regarding is ensured by the Conm1ission which shall notify the owner about the works to be undettaken. The owner may express his/her remarks within a week following notification. 2. The Commission is entitled to implement all works that the owner refuses to implement within a 3 months delay, at the expenses of the owner after waming him/her. 3. The Commission shall have a priority right for purchase of such Heritage. 4. The Commission, upon itself or upon the request of the owner, may conduct the required works to protect and restore historical monuments, by bearing not more than 50% of such costs. Sectiou Ill Historical village aud towu ceuters Article 18 Protection decision 1. The Conunission can take protection decisions for historical village and town centers of religious and historical significance. 318· 2. Such decision is advettised in a conspicuous location near the historical village and town center concemed. 3. Any person can contest the decision within 60 days before the administrative board that will either withdraw the decision or suppmt it. 4. The preparation of preservation plans is subject to the same procedures in preparing structural plans and need to be approved by higher planning council upon a joint decision by the Commission and the higher planning council 5. If the Conunission deems it necessary, intervention plans for historical village and town centers can be prepared at the expense of the owners or possessors. 6. The preservation plan for historical village and town centers shall replace structural plans within the limits of the protected area. Article 19 Implementation and Supervision 1. Local councils in Palestinian districts, towns and villages shall assume the responsibility of overseeing and implementing the preservation plans in historical village and town centers. 2. The Conm1ission shall supervise the implementation of the preservation plans for the historical village and town centers on the national level. Article 20 Incentives The Commission can offer financial assistance and rewards to the owners of historical village and town centers depending on their significance and the needs for preserving and maintaining them in order to encourage them to protect them. Chapter Four: General Commission for Cultural and Natural Heritage Section I Establishment and management of the Commission Article 21 Establishment and composition of the Commission 1. A General Conm1ission for Cultural and Natural Heritage and its local branches are hereby established in accordance with this Law. The Conunission shall be a technical and independent legal entity. It shall take all necessary measures to guarantee the accomplishment ofthe purposes of this Law and of its establishment. 2. The Conm1ission shall be composed of technical experts of cultural and natural Heritage. Unless differently decided by the Conm1ission, most of these experts are divided in the following four specialized technical units, in accordance with the provisions of this Law: A. Registration Conm1ittee for Cultural Heritage B. Registration Conm1ittee for Natural Heritage C. Platming Conm1ittee for Cultural Heritage D. Platming Conunittee for Natural Heritage 319 3. The job descriptions of these experts are approved by the Board of Directors of the Conm1ission. 4. Extemal authoritative experts may be consulted by the Commission where appropriate. 5. Each unit shall be managed by a highly competent expett. 6. The Conm1ission shall have a special budget attached to the budget of the Palestinian National Authority. 7. The main location "premises" ofthe Commission shall be in Jemsalem. The temporary premises shall be located in the place determined by the Palestinian National Authority. The Commission may establish local branches, as appropriate, in Palestinian govem rates and municipalities. Article 22 Chair of the Commission 1. The Chair of the Commission shall be appointed per a decision from the Council of Ministers, for five years which can be renewed only for once. However, the Chair shall be an expert and specialist in the field of Heritage. 2. The Chair of the Conm1ission shall be responsible for the following duties: 1. Manage the Conm1ission and supervise its works in accordance with the authorities vested in him. 2. Represent the Conunission 3. Implement the decisions ofthe Board ofDirectors. 4. Call the Board of Director for meeting 5. Appoint employees of the Cultural and Natural Heritage Conunission, except those appointed by higher levels 6. Prepare the budget and the final accounts of the Heritage Conunission, and submit them to the Board of Directors, in order to take necessary actions. 7. Make all payment decisions, and submit those, which need the endorsement of the Board of Directors for approval. 8. Conclude agreements and contracts. 9. Ensure the administrative coordination among the departments of the Conm1ission. 3. The Chair of the Commission may delegate his/her signature or patt of his/her activities to any of the Directors General in the Commission. Section// Funds ofthe Commission Article (23) Funds and Resources of the Commission 1. The funds of the Cmmnission shall be considered public funds, and shall be collected in accordance with the applicable Law of collecting public funds. 2. The resources of the Conu11ission shall consist of: 1. The Conunission appropriation from the Budget of the Palestinian National Authority. 2. Direct revenues from services or investment in Heritage. 3. Grants, aids, and assistance received by the Conunission 320 4. Loans approved by the Council of Ministers 5. Fees (or patt of it by Law). 6. Financial fines collected by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Law. Article 24 Establishment of Heritage Fund A special fund shall be established under the name of "Heritage Fund". The purpose of this fund is to protect Heritage, and to provide financial resources, as per special regulations, which specifies its objectives, management, resources, and methods of spending. Article 25 Supervision of the Ministry of Finance All revenues and collections of the Corrunission shall be deposited in a special account, under the supervision ofthe Ministry of Finance, and in the Public Treasmy. Article 26 Auditing of Commission's Accounts 1. The Conunission shall organize its accounts and records in accordance with the unifmm and united accounting principles and procedures in Palestine. 2. The Board of Directors shall appoint one or more chattered auditors to audit and control the accounts and records of the Conunission. 3. The Conunission shall deal with the auditor in a transparent matmer, and shall give him the right to review and look at all books, records, and documents of the Conm1ission. To this end, the auditor shall have the right to obtain all information and data, he believes necessary to perform his mission. 4. The Ministry of Finance/ Administrative and Financial Control Institution "Bureau" shall audit the accounts of the Conm1ission. Article 27) Non-Exemption of Governmental Departments in Return of Utilization Despite what is stated in any otheJ· legislation, govemmental departments, official or non- govemment organizations, or individuals, shall not be exempted from any fees , revenues, wages, in retum of utilization of services rendered by the Conm1ission, as per the provisions of this Law. Section Ill Board of Directors Article 28 Composition and Functions of the Board of Directors 1. The Board of Directors shall be formed in accordance with the provisions of this Law. It shall consist ofthitteen members, or their representative expetts in Heritage, as follows: 1. Prime Minister Chair 321 2. Minister of Culture or his Representative 3. Minister in Charge of Environment Affairs 4. Minister of Local Governance· or his Representative 5. Minister of Tourism or his Representative 6. Minister of Agriculture or his Representative 7. Minister of Islamic Awqaf "Endowment" 8. Representative of Christian Churches in Palestine 9. Representative of Chambers of Commerce Association 10. Academic Expett in Cultural Heritage 11. Academic Expett in Natural Heritage 12. Representative ofNGOs 13. Representative of Private Sector involved in Heritage First Deputy Second Deputy Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member 2. Members of Board of Directors who do not belong to ministries shall be appointed by a decision from the Prime Minister, based on a recommendation from the Minister of Culture, and the Head of the Environment Authority, each in accordance with their jurisdiction. 3. The Chair of the Conm1ission may attend the meetings of the Board of Directors. 4. The tetm of the Board of Directors shall be four years, statting from the date of its forn1ation 5. Functions of the Board of Directors: 1. Approve the general policy of the Heritage Conm1ission in the cultural and natural field 2. Endorse plans and programs related to the development and protection of Heritage, and develop human resources operating in this field 3. Approve the administrative structure and chatt of organization of the Conunission management, and any amendments to them. 4. Detennine fees, charges, prices, and revenues, which will be collected by the Conunission, amending them, as well as exemption from such fees and charges. 5. Approve the draft budget of the Commission, its final accounts, and submitting it for endorsement 6. Appoint auditors for the Commission's accounts Article 29 Meetings of the Board of Directors The Board of Directors shall: 1. hold an ordinary regular meeting once a year, based on an invitation from its Chair. 2. hold an exceptional meeting based on a request from the Chair, its Deputy, Chair of the Conm1ission, or one-third of its members. 3. hold sessions with the presence of two-third of its members. Decisions shall need the absolute majority of its members. 4. In case of absence of quorum in the first session, the next session will be held with the members who attend, after seven days from the date of the previous session, and based on 322 a new invitation made by the Chair of the Board of Directors, its Deputy, the Chair of the Heritage Conm1ission. 5. The Chair of the Board of Directors, or its Deputy, based on a request from the Chair of the Conm1ission, or per a decision from the Board of Directors, may invite the directors general, and members of the consultative committee for the cultural and natural Heritage, to attend the sessions of the Board, to participate in the discussion of the agenda, but without having the right to vote. 6. The Chair of the Commission may, after the approval of the Chair of Board of Directors, invite one person or more, who are interested in the Palestinian Heritage, to attend its session, to patticipate in the discussion of its agenda, provided that they shall not have the right to vote. Section IV Functions of the Commission Article 30 Duties and Activities of the Commission The Commission shall be responsible for the management and supervision of keeping and protecting Heritage within its environment, in accordance with the public policy of the state. The Commission shall: 1. Receive and assess requests for registration of Heritage refened to in Atticle 7, on its own initiative or on request of the concerned pa1ties. 2. Unless differently decided by the Conm1ission, where local heritage is at stake, the local branch of the Conunission receives and assesses requests for registration of local heritage, on its own initiative or on request of the concerned patties. The Commission decides if and to which extent the local branch is equipped and staffed sufficiently to receive and assess such 'fequests and, therefore, to which extent this has to be done by the Conu11ission itself or in cooperation with its local branch. 3. Decide on requests for registration of Heritage as national or local Heritage as refened to in Atticle 7. 4. Reconsider regularly such registration and cancel it where the Heritage concerned has lost its significance. 5. Reconsider regularly such registration and convert it from national to local Heritage, or vice versa, if the significance of such Heritage has changed. 6. Issue all necessary licenses and permits, where appropriate and in accordance with the provisions of this Law, or the regulations issued hereto, on its own initiative or on request of the concerned patties. 7. Take all expeditious arrangements and conservative measures to protect a cultural or natural Heritage which is subject to inevitable hazards and risks, and which needs to be protected and rescued. 8. Issue decisions, to be published in the Official Gazette, on how Heritage protection under this Law shall be performed. 9. Develop: a. public policy of Heritage, dete1mine plans and pnonhes to protect Heritage, work to implement them in cooperation and coordination with concerned and relevant bodies. b. human resources operating in this field. 10. Work to increase : a. awareness regarding the importance of Heritage, and the necessity to protect it, through organizing public awareness campaigns, printing of brochures and posters of Heritage sites and locations b. cooperation progtams related to Heritage on the intemational, regional, and bilateral level, as well as organizing conferences. 11. Adopt scientific research in the development and implementation of policies, in conjunction with public and private sectors, research centers, and intemational bodies operating in the field ofHeritage. 12. Encourage cooperation between public and private initiatives in the fields of management, protection, and development of Heritage. 13. Establish, organize, and manage museums, protected areas, and cultural and natural Heritage sites dedicated for the use of the public. 14. Organize, supervise, and conduct survey, search, excavation, restoration, intervention plans, by itself, or by others, as well as publish periodicals to disseminate repotis of these works. 15. Incorporate Heritage protections principles in the economic and social development plans. 16. Develop regulations related to detetmining fees and revenues that will be charged by the Conunission. 17. Develop a special system for the employees of the Commission, and establish the chart of organization for it, in accordance with provisions of this Law. 18. Develop necessary regulations to implement the provisions of this Law. 19. Prepare the general budget of the Commission, and submit it for endorsement by the Council ofMinisters 20. Prepare reports and propose necessary recommendations for the Council of Ministers. 21 . Prepare a special record of Heritage experts, which include names, addresses, and qualifications. 22. Provide financial incentives to protect and develop cultural and natural Heritage, as well as accept and receive grants, wills, donations, and encourage local and foreign investment in cultural and natural Heritage. 23. Develop general criteria, standards, and specifications for the protection, management, and development of cultural Heritage. 24. Any other duties assigned to it, in accordance with the provisions of applicable laws and regulations. Article 31 Cultural Heritage Records The Commission shall organize the records of the registered Heritage, in which inventory, documentation, identity and address of owner or holder, evaluation, registration, preservation plans or other relevant measures shall be entered, in coordination with ministries and concerned bodies. Article 32 Inventory List The Commission shall prepare an inventory list for the categories of movable and inunovable cultural Heritage, which shall be completed and reviewed continuously, in accordance with regulations to be issued as per the provisions of this Law. The list shall include general criteria for the selection of the categories of Heritage, methods, means, and procedures for preparing inventory, as well as data of the inventory list. 324 Article 33 Review of Inventory List A person may request access to the inventory list for research, study, and development purposes. The Commission may regulate such access in a manner that protects these records and their privacy. Chapter Five: Arcltaeological Excavations Article 38 Preservation plans The Commission shall assume the preparation of preservation plans regarding archeological sites and shall complete all approval procedures by the Heritage council. Article 39 Implementing and Overseeing Plans The Commission in coordination with the concerned local councils will implement and oversee preservation plans regarding archeological sites on the national and local levels. Article 40 Restricting excavation and digging works 1. The Conunission shall assume the responsibility of direct supervision of excavation and digging and survey works in archeological sites. 2. No one may unde1take digging, survey work and excavation in archeological sites, whether they are conducted in his prope1ty or in the property of others, without a prior pern1it to be requested to the Heritage Commission. 3. Such request must indicate the excavation or survey location, the pmticular conditions, the conunitment of the excavator to respect relevant regulations and to repmt any findings to the Heritage Conunission, the expected duration and results of the excavation or the survey. 4. Survey and excavation works are conducted by the person who has obtained the license under his/her responsibility and according to the conditions indicated in the license and the provisions of the Law. Article 41 Illicitly excavated archaeological objects Any illicitly excavated archaeological object in Palestine is the ownership of the Palestinian National Authorities Article 42 Informing about the discovery of archeological sites 325 Any person discovering archeological sites or moveable antiquities, or knowing about their discovery, has to inform the Heritage Commission or any nearest local council or a police station within 3 days . The local council or the police station will inform the Heritage Commission inunediately. The Conm1ission must' initiate the registration process as soon as it makes any discoveries according to the provisions of this Law. Article 43 Stating the holding of archeological sites Head of Commission can tell any party or society or a public institution or private one operating in the field of Heritage to hold to any archeological site, administer and maintain it according to conditions and procedures specified by the Conunission. Article 44 Delivering discoveries The person who has been authorized to conduct excavation and survey works and looking for antiquities must deliver what he discovers to the museum or the center specified by the Commission coupled with a detailed scientific repot1 on the discoveries and the date of their discovery. Article 45 Compensating owners of damaged property The Commission or the concemed patty must compensate the owner or the possessor of pro petty if the digging or excavation works damaged the buildings existing in the property, or if the works have impeded the natural exploitation of the land and what is found under its soil. Article 46 Cessation of excavation works The head of the Commission can stop any works in a cettain building for a temporary period of time not exceeding 6 months to conduct survey and excavation works required to ensure the existence and proper management of archeological sites. He can for this purpose take all the necessary procedures and measures in accordance with the provisions of this Law. Article 47 Conditions for granting licenses Granting licenses is conditioned to the following: 1) The person must : a. pay the decided fees; b. be equipped with scientific, technical and financial qualifications for this purpose as specified by the Commission; c. be committed to delivering the antiquities he discovers to the Commission d. be conunitted to the publication ofthe results of his excavation within a period of time not exceeding 3 years following the completion of the excavation works. The head of the Conm1ission can extend the period for one more year or refer the case to another party. e. submit three copies of the detailed report including photos and plans 2) If the excavator is foreign, he/she must have a Palestinian pattner 326 3) No license may be granted to a person who violated the terms or the previous license. (in the last ... 2 years ?) 4) The license will be valid for one year with the possibility of renewing it and having its items reviewed. Article 48 Temporary grab 1. If the Commission decides to conduct survey and excavation works on a property that is not owned by the Palestinian National Authorities, the Corru11ission may, if it fails to reach agreement with the owner, decide to conduct temporarily such survey within the provisions ofthis Law. 2. In such a case, compensation is paid according to the provisions of this Law. The land must be retumed to its owners in its original state following the expity of the temporary survey, with the exception of the land in which survey and excavation works lead to the discovery of antiquities which the Commission decides to protect. Article 49 Canceling licenses The Commission can cancel the license either permanently or temporarily in the event of violations of the provisions of this Law and the regulations and instructions issued by its vittue, or in the event of violation of the conditions ofthe license. Article 50 Heritage discovered by co-incidence Antiquities discovered during fortuitous excavation, survey or digging, are considered to be the property of the National Palestinian Authorities. The discoverer and the owner of the propetty will be responsible for keeping the discoveries for the shottest period of time, and in appropriate place and conditions, until they are delivered to the Conm1ission. Chapter Six: Natural Heritage (to be seriously reconsidered and improved) TITLE 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 51 Preservation of natural resources, water, and others Without prejudice to any of the other provisions of relevant laws effective in Palestine, this Law guarantees the preservation of natural resources, water resources, springs, energy, animal, botanical, land, and water resources, as an integral patt of the natural Heritage. 327 Article 52 Maritime Heritage The maritime antiquities, historical objects, natural resources, all kinds of living organisms, natural maritime sites, or sites in internal water resources, or rivers, or springs, are considered as an integral part of the natural Heritage. Article 53 General protection of the natural Heritage 1. Registered natural Heritage under this Law is considered protected, if any of the following procedures were applied to it: inventory and/or declaration. 2. The procedures of protections, their levels, and impact are governed by special regulations in accordance with provisions of this Law. TITLE 2: INVENTORY Article 54 Preparation of preliminary lists 1. The Commission shall prepare" preliminary lists of natural Heritage assets" 2. When preparing the preliminary lists, critetia detetmined by the Commission shall be take into consideration, provided they include: a. Conduct surveys, evaluations, and necessary classifications in accordance to the relevant Commission's criteria b. Conduct reviews of the lists through the organization of hearings with interested parties c. Provide means and methods to ensure the pmiicipation of all (or the public and the specialists) in adding new Heritage assets to the lists. 3. The preliminary lists of natural Heritage assets are published in two daily newspapers. Article 55 Non-official declaration of preliminary lists The Heritage Conm1ission shall publish declarations including lists of natural Heritage assets through the various media outlets. TITLE3: Article 56 Preparation of final lists a. The Commission shall prepare final lists called" final lists of natural Heritage assets". b. When preparing the final lists, criteria determined by the Commission shall be taken into consideration, provided they include : 1. Conduct surveys, evaluations, and necessary classifications, in accordance with criteria set forth by the Conmlission, including review of preliminary lists, and conducting the necessary field surveys. 2. Prepare any preliminary lists for review and classification by specialists. 3. Prepare final lists (final lists of natural Heritage assets) taking into consideration the universal classification of ranks or any national and/ or local regulations that are being prepared by relevant pmiies in Palestine. 328 4. Review of final lists through the organization of public hearings for all (or the public and specialists) 5. Provide the means and mechanisms to ensure the participation of experts and specialists in reviewing, evaluating, amending any cultural assets included in the final lists, whether the amendment is to add or delete assets. Article 57 Official declaration of final lists and its publication in the Official Gazette 1. The final cultural Heritage assets lists are declared upon a decision of the head of the Conunission. The declaration is published in the official gazette. 2. The same procedures stipulated under paragraph (a) are taken into consideration when introducing any amendments whether by deleting or adding to the declared final lists published in the official gazette. Article 58 Classification of final lists in accordance with the system of ranks ( ranks of categories) 1. The final lists of natural Heritage assets are classified in two categories: lists of sites (natural areas) and lists of living organisms. 2. The lists of sites shall include the following ranks' categories or any of them: a. sites with strict protection (wild life area, natural reserve) b. sites for the preservation of the environmental system (national park) c. sites for the preservation of natural characteristics (natural monument) d. sites for the preservation through active management (environmental area, managed~ area) e. protected sites for managed resources 3. The lists oftypes include the following ranks' categories or any of them: a. Endangered species b. Vulnerable species c. Rare species d. Settled species ( enrooted) e. Intruding species 4. For detennining the levels of protection purposes, the Commission may apply the global Ranking system in classifying the assets of natural Heritage. It may also prepare a system of national ranking or/and local for rare species or kinds in Palestine. Article 59 Sections of the final lists for registration, declaration, and publication purposes 1. The final lists of natural Heritage assets are divided for the purpose of registration, and final declaration, into the following sections: a. Natural sites (areas) b. Kinds of animals c. Kinds of flora d. Kinds of migrating birds 2. With the exception of sites , the above-mentioned sections are classified in the previous paragraph internally into two branches: the original (enrooted) kind, and the new intruding kinds. 329 3. F01~ purposes of determining the level of protection, the ranks' categories shall be taken into consideration (ranks of kinds) as stipulated in paragraphs (b, c) of article() ofthis Law. TITLE 4: PROCEDURES OF PROTECTION FOR THE NATURAL HERITAGE Article 60 Genetically modified organisms Genetically modified organisms may not be used except with pennission from the Commission. Article 61 Conducting preventive actions The Heritage Commission may take all direct regulations and procedures to protect the natural Heritage. Such preventive actions include fencing the sites, prohibiting or restricting the hunting of birds or animals, or prohibiting or restricting the chopping of trees or plants, etc. Article 62 Setting up signs and Billboards The Commission may, in cooperation with relevant concemed parties, set up necessaty signs and billboards on roads or any other places to indicate the existence of a natural site (or areas). Article 63 Placing a sign in the land and survey registers 1. The Commission shall, within a maximum period of 15 days from the date of declaration in the official Gazette of any area as a natural site, notify the director of lands and areas. 2. The director of lands and areas shall, within a maximum period of 15 days , from receiving the notification mentioned under paragraph a, place a sign next to each pati of the natural site's lands. 3. If any piece of land was taken out of the scope of the natural site, due to a deletion or change, the same procedures stipulated under paragraph a, and b shall be followed, provided a cancellation sign or change sign is placed and dated. Article 64 Right to ownership The Commission is entitled to own any of the lands that form natural sites, in retum of a fair compensation and in accordance with effective ownership laws. Article 65 Conducting maintenance work and others The Commission seeks to protect the natural Heritage, which includes the maintenance, update, retum, retrieval , improvement, maintaining, modifying, monitoring and presentation. Article 66 Hunting of animals, birds, and maritime organisms 330 The Commission shall determine the kinds of animals, birds, and fish that are allowed to be hunted, as well as hunting areas, and times. The information shall be published in the various media outlets. Article 67 Chopping trees and cutting plants The Heritage Commission shall determine the kinds of trees and plants that can be cut, or grazed, or collected, as well as designate grazing areas, times, and announce that to the public. Chapter Seven: Inspection and Preventive Measures Section I : Inspection and seizure Article 68 Grant Commission staff the status of Law officers 1. For purposes of implementing this Law, the staff of the Heritage Commission who work in monitoring and inspection shall have the status of Law officers. They are entitled to enter Heritage sites to inspect, monitor, and undertake any other necessary actions. 2. The inspection and monitoring staff shall, upon seizure of any pieces, or coins, or tools, or fake or stolen or smuggled artifacts, prepare repotis of seized items, location where they were seized, and have the person with whom these items were found sign on the report. 3. Entry to residences shall only be allowed with permission in accordance with procedures of criminal Law. Article 69 Powers of Commission's inspectors I. The Commission's inspectors have the right to enter any land, or construction to inspect Heritage sites, or locations, or centers or monuments. They have the right to request infmmation, data, and relevant documents, as well as conduct the necessary and needed tests to take specimens, and any other actions as deemed appropriate by the inspector. 2. Each individual shall provide any information, data, and documents requested by the Commission's inspectors in accordance with the Law, in relation to Heritage and the facilitation of inspectors' work. 3. The Commission's inspectors have the right to inspect, or examine any movable Heritage item. They also have the right to request relevant infom1ation, data, and documents, as well as conduct the necessary tests, take specimen, and undertake any other actions deemed necessary by the inspector. Article 70 Prohibition of maritime Heritage inspection, unless with prior licensing Inspection or excavation of maritime Heritage as described by atiicle 4 of this Law, or its lifting, shall be prohibited unless prior permission from the Heritage Commission is obtained. 331 Section I/ Preventive measures/ emergency and preventive procedures Article 71 Declaration of endangered sites The head of the Commission may announce in the various media outlets any Heritage sites that are endangered or susceptible to collapsing. Article 72 Sealing off Heritage sites The head of the Commission may seal off Heritage sites for the public in order to conduct necessary maintenance work, or any other actions to prevent a threat, provided that the head of the Commission notifies the head of the local council authority and the police center in that community. The head ofthe Commission shall inform the Heritage council of this measure in the first meeting that the council convenes. Article 73 Emergency decisions The head of the Heritage Commission may take an emergency decision to preserve any cultural, natural Heritage site, or any site, or real estate, or buildings surrounding a cultural or natural Heritage site, if serious dangers or tlu·eats to the Heritage sites are apparent, or the arising of reasons that justify the protection. Article 74 " Preventive (precautionary) decisions The head of the Conunission may take a preventive/precautionary decision to protect a cultural or natural Heritage site, or areas around the site, if the site was subject or might be subject to confirmed threats that require rapid intervention. The head of the Commission shall take the necessary measures to register this site, and prepare a protection plan within six months maximum. Article 75 Emergency measures to protect maritime Heritage The Heritage Commission may take emergency measures and procedures that it deems appropriate to protect maritime Heritage as stipulated by atiicle ( ) of this Law in case of potential threats or risks, that may threaten its existence or affect it. Chapter Eight: Incentives and Penalties Section I: Incentives Article 76 Notify the Commission of antiquities sites discovered 332 The Conm1ission may pay a reward to any individual who discovers an antiquity by coincidence or provides infonnation that might lead to the discovery of an antiquity, and reported it in accordance with the provisions of this Law. Article 77 Income tax deduction The expenses for the licensed maintenance, and renovation of antiquities are deducted from the income tax imposed on investment projects subject to that tax, upon a decision from the Commission. This privilege shall not include constructions and new additions, and shall take into consideration other laws. Article 78 Exemption of taxes and fees Without prejudice to the provisions of this Law, the incentives stipulated by the Law for the encouragement of investment shall apply to all investment projects in the field of the protection of the natural and cultural Heritage. Article 79 Commission's contribution to protection measures of special monuments The special measures for the protection of historical monuments of national or regional significance or the tasks to be undertaken to preserve the historical monuments from collapsing necessitate the contribution by the Commission of a percentage not exceeding 50% ofthe total costs ofthese tasks. The Conm1ission shall detetmine the percentage of its contribution on a case by case basis. Article 80 Commission's contribution to the expenses of preservation and renovation of movable Heritage The Commission shall contribute to the expenses of the preservation and renovation of movable Heritage owned by individuals, or museums, or cultural centers, or private libraries. Article 81 Tax exemptions for museums Public and private museums shall be exempted from all taxes. All equipment, vehicles, machines, furniture, books, scripts, and other items procured by museums shall be customs exempted. Article 82 Management of Heritage for investment purposes The Conm1ission may delegate to other parties the management of Heritage for investment purposes in accordance with the provisions of the Law and special conditions. Article 83 Incentives of natural Heritage 333 All above exemptions stipulated by this Law that are related to cultural Heritage shall apply to natural Heritage as well. Section // : Penalties Article 84 The Palestinian comts have the power and jurisdiction to rule in disputes related to the natural and cultural Heritage. Article 85 Without prejudice to any more severe penalty stipulated by any other Law, the penalties under this chapter shall apply to crimes against the Heritage. Sub-Section I Crimes against cultural Heritage Article 86 Any individual violating the provisions of this Law or any regulations or resolutions issued under this Law shall be sentenced to( ..... ) or fined for an amount of one hundred dinars but not exceeding one thousand Jordanian dinars, or its equivalent in circulated culTency stipulated by the Law or both penalties. Article 87 Any individual dumping wastes or soil or commercial wastes or others or animals corpses in Heritage sites shall be sentenced to( ..... ) or fined for an amount not less than( .... .. ) dinars and not exceeding( ..... ) dinars or its equivalent in the circulated cunency stipulated by Law, or both penalties. Article 88 The head of the Conunission may decide to remove any aggression against any Heritage site. The tourism police/ relevant parties shall implement the removal decision and restore the site to its original situation at the expenses of the aggressor. Article 89 Any individual shall be sentenced to( ..... ) prison or fined for an amount not less than( ..... ) dinars or its equivalent in circulated culTency stipulated by the Law or both penalties for committing any of the following actions: 1. Falsify a Heritage item to change its nature or significance 2. Falsify a stamp or a hallmark or a rep01t or ce1tificates used by the Commission for its work purposes. 3. Use a falsified item 4. Imitate an object of Heritage for purposes of registration, or trading, or introduce it as something other than its true nature. Article 90 Any individual that attacks or inflict damage or destruction or spoil an object of Heritage shall be sentenced to( .... . ) or fined for an amount not less than( .... .. ) dinars or its equivalent in the circulated cunency or both penalties. 334 Article 91 Any individual who shall survey or excavate or misuse or invest any piece of land or any of the Heritage sites in violation of the provisions of the Law and without prior permission from the Heritage Commission shall be sentenced to( ..... ) or fined for an amount not less than( ...... ) dinars or its equivalent in the circulated cunency or both penalties. Article 92 Any individual who discovers or is aware of the discovery ofHeritage sites or movable antiquities, and refrain from reporting to the Heritage Commission shall be sentenced( ..... ) or fined for an amount not less than( ...... ) dinars or its equivalent in the circulated currency or both penalties. Article 93 Any individual who shall prevent or hinder the work of staff or those allowed by this Law to undettake their work shall be sentenced to( .. ... ) or fined for an amount not less than( ...... ) dinars or its equivalent in the circulated cunency or both penalties. The penalty shall be doubled in instances were violence is used. Article 94 Any individual who shall set up or remove any sign or billboard or indicator or an equipment, or operate an object of Heritage without paying the ensuing rights in accordance with this Law, or build over the site or undemeath it any construction or building without prior permission from the Commission shall be sentenced to( .... . ) or fined for an amount not less than( ...... ) dinars or its equivalent in the circulated currency or both penalties. Article 95 Any individual who shall make any changes or additions to an object of Heritage without prior permission from the Commission shall be sentenced to( ..... ) or fined for an amount not less than ( ...... )dinars or its equivalent in the circulated currency or both penalties. Article 96 Any individual who shall build a wall or a construction near an object of Heritage or----- shall be sentenced to( .. ... ) or fined for an amount not less than( ...... ) dinars or its equivalent in the circulated cunency or both penalties. Article 97 Any individual who shall refrain from providing infom1ation or data or documents to the Commission and therefore had led to damages to an object of Heritage shall be sentenced to( .. ... ) or fined for an amount not less than( ...... ) dinars or its equivalent in the circulated currency or both penalties. Article 98 Any individual who shall move an object ofHeritage or removed it from its original location without a written permission from the Conm1ission shall be sentenced to( ..... ) or fined for an amount not less than( ...... ) dinars or its equivalent in the circulated currency or both penalties. Article 99 Any individual who shall violate the licensing conditions for works as stipulated by articles ( ) of this Law shall be sentenced to( ..... ) or fined for an amount not less than( ...... ) dinars or its equivalent in the circulated currency or. both penalties. 335 Article 100 In addition to what is stipulated by the Law or any other regulations of penalties issued in accordance with it shall be sentenced to removing the damage on the expense of the defendant and all materials and tools used in the scene of the crime shall be confiscated. Sub-Section// Crimes committed against natural Heritage Article 101 a. Any individual who violates any of provisions stipulated by this Law, or causes disruptions or damages in sites of natural Heritage or led to the decrease in the number of natural reserves of living organisms or bio-communities, shall be considered as having committed a crime and shall be sentenced to ( . . ... ) and a penalty of ( .... ). b. Any crime committed in violation of the provisions of this Law result in the perpetrator's responsibility to repair any resulting damages at his/her own expense. c. In case of repeating a crime, the penalty may be doubled as well as the repair expenses stipulated under paragraph a, b, of this article. Article 102 Any individual who shall dump or cause dumping of trash, or dirt, or industrial wastes, or corpses of dead animals, or other kind ofwastes at sites (areas) ofnatural Heritage or seas, or rivers, or wells, or inigation canals, or pools, or springs, or other sites (areas) of natural Heritage shall be considered as having committed a crime and shall be sentenced to( .. .. ) or a penalty of( ..... ). Article 103 Any individual who shall hunt or kill or capture or endanger local or migrant birds, or wild animals, or maritime animal organisms including fish, or who bought the mentioned birds or animals or destroyed their houses or nests, or destroyed or ruined the environment in which they live, shall be considered as having committed a crime and shall be sentenced to( ..... ) and a penalty of( .... ). Article 104 Any individual who shall undertake any action or activity that would damage natural reserves or forests, or public parks or wild botanic or maritime organisms or shall undermine their aesthetics shall be considered as having committed a crime and shall be sentenced to( .... ) and a penalty of ( .... ). Article 105 The penalty shall be doubled in the case of staff of authorities or relevant public and local commissions or those assigned with the task of preserving the cultural Heritage, demolishing, or destroying or assaulting the cultural Heritage whether fixed or movable or the theft of movable Heritage or its smuggling or falsification or trading without the authorization of the Conm1ission. Chapter Nine: Final and Transitional Provisions Article 106 The effectiveness of the provisions of Law under a state of emergency 336 The provisions of this Law shall remain effective under a state of emergency and shall not be disabled. No actions shall be undertaken that might undermine or demolish or ruin Heritage of all categories in accordance with their definition as stipulated by this Law. Article 107 Transfer of powers of the Department of Antiquities 1. All powers and responsibilities of the Department of Antiquities shall be transfened to the Commission, as well as all the department's belongings in accordance with the effective obligatory laws and regulations. 2. All the powers and responsibilities related to the natural and cultural Heritage that are accorded by effective legislation prior to the endorsement and implementation of this Law and its provisions related to the protection of the natural and cultural Heritage and their preservation shall be transfened to the Commission. Article 108 Reporting about antiquities The owner or the possessor of any movable or immovable Heritage shall inform the Commission accordingly within six months from the date this Law becomes effective (See Art.7). Article 109 Keeping the antiquities under the disposal of the owners It shall be allowed to keep the natural or cultural Heritage under the disposition of their owners or possessors prior to the date this Law becomes effective as deposits, with the exception of antiquities that required special protection, on which the Conunission has the right to place them in one of the national museums. As this Law enters into force, it regulates the exercise of ownership of Heritage as referred to, in particular, in articles 8 and 10. Article 110 Reconciliation of affairs in accordance with the Law 1. All permits, licenses, approvals, and agreements issued prior to the date this Law becomes effective shall be reconciled in accordance with its provisions within a maximum of one year from the date the Law becomes effective. 2. All lists of antiquities sites, their boundaries, structural plans, and natural reserves issued in accordance with laws and regulations issued prior to the date this Law becomes effective shall be considered valid and correct until reconciliation in accordance with provisions of this Law. 3. The lists of antiquities and their preservation plans issued in accordance with laws and regulations prior to the date this Law becomes effective shall be considered valid and correct until their reconciliation in accordance with its provisions. Article 111 Maintaining Provisions All lists or lists defining sites (areas) of natural reserves or kinds of animals or plants, or birds, issued in accordance with effective laws prior to the date this Law becomes effective shall be considered as binding and as issued in accordance with this Law. Article 112 Palestine joining international agreements The Commission shall work on joining international agreements and conventions related to the protection of natural and cultural Heritage. Article 113 Abolition of the Commission The Commission can only be abolished upon a legislation detennining the procedures related to that. Article 114 Putting in place secondary legislation The Commission shall put in place regulations and resolutions needed to implement the provisions of this Law. These regulations shall be issued upon a decision ofthe Council of Ministers and shall be published in the Official Gazette. Article 115 Abrogation The following laws shall be considered abrogated: 1. The Law of ancient antiquities, title 5 of 1929, published under title 5 ofDrayton. 2. The Law of ancient antiquities number 51 of 1966, published in issue --- of the Jordanian Official Gazette. 3. The Palestinian Museum of Antiquities regulations of 1937, published in issue number of the Palestinian Official Gazette. 4. Temporary Law of the Palestinian Museum of Antiquities number 72 of 1966, published in issue number of the Jordanian Official Gazette. Article 116 Implementation of the Law All relevant parties shall each in their respective areas implement this Law. Article 117 The validity of the Law This Law shall be published in the Palestinian Official Gazette, and shall be effective within 30 days from the date it is published. Issued in Ramallah on: Y ass er Arafat Chair of the Executive Committee of the PLO President of the Palestinian National Authority APPENDIX 9: H AARETZ NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON lAA PROPOSAL TO SELL SHERDS Available from Haaretz Newspaper October 5, 2003 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShAli.jhtml?itemNo=346879&sw=antiquities ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY CONSIDERS TRADING FINDS ON OPEN MARKET By Amiram Barkat The Antiquities Authority is considering selling pottery shards unearthed in archaeological digs on the open market. If the move is approved, it could be an international precedent - a state authority established to protect antiquities will be trading in them. Some of the suggestions so far concern include using shards as building materials and antique glass in women's jewellery. The Antiquities Authority says the initiative stems from acute budgetary distress. Since 2001, the authority's budget has been slashed by more than 20 percent and its income has sharply declined due to the construction recession. A few weeks ago, the Archaeological Council, the body in charge of the authority's budget, convened and rejected the initiative. But senior Antiquities Authority officials hope the move will be approved after they modified their proposal and obtained a legal opinion that selling pottery s_!lards is not against the law. President Moshe Katsav, an amateur collector, says there is no point in storing up millions of items that have no research value and are not required for exhibitions. Another suppmier is the director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel A viv University, Professor Israel Finkelstein. He told Haaretz that he sees no point "in keeping thousands of identical objects that have no real value, while there is no money to publish dig repmis." Finkelstein cautions, however, against taking steps without coordinating them with other countries. "Antiquities trading is such a sensitive issue these days that if we launch it alone, the international community may ostracize us," he said. Others strongly oppose the initiative. Dorfman's deputy, Dr. Uzi Dahari, described the proposed move as "a national disaster" and warned that if carried out, the state would be drained of its assets within a few years. "Archaeology is not oil; it's a cultural asset," Dahari said. "In recent years, all our neighbouring states have undet;stood this and have banned trade in antiquities. Try getting a shard out of Egypt today. You cannot renounce national cultural heritage to solve budget problems. We have no mandate to do that to the future generations." "It's almost like letting the police sell drugs," said one university institution director. 339 The shards' financial value is questionable and it is not yet clear how they would be sold. One possibility is to use the huge amount of shards as building material. Dr. Gideon Avni, director of excavations and surveys at the Antiquities Authority, cited a recent excavation of his in Lod during which contractors asked him to buy shards. "I had about two million pieces I had no use for," he recalled. The problem is that using shards in constmction may have dire consequences: Future archaeologists may erroneously believe that under a villa in Shoham, for example, lies a Neolithic village. There is also a legal problem: The Antiquities Law of 1978 specifically stipulates that every antique discovered from that year on is owned by the state. Dorfman said he had a legal opinion saying they could still be sold, anyway. But it is feared that what will begin with selling worthless shards will lead to the commercialization of Israel's archaeological heritage. "I tend to side with those opposing the trade," said Dorfman, adding, however, that he was also seriously considering the opinions of antique collectors who were urging him to open the antiquities market to free trade. "They say, rather than hide the archaeology in your stores, let it out, let it reach as many homes in Israel as possible. At the moment, I draw the line at selling whole a1iicles ." "Money is the curse of archaeology," said Dahari. "We cannot allow this process to begin." Until the introduction ofth"e Antiquities Law archaeologists would sometimes sell shards left on their digs. They did not receive significant sums for them. Dorfman said only economic feasibility surveys would enable estimating the initiative's economic value. He believes the shards have an economic value. "You can take a nice shard, frame it, put a stamp of the Antiquities Authority on it and write something in English like: 'Discovered in the Byzantine convent in the Shoham area.' Maybe it could fetch $2-3 dollars." Another idea of his is to sell antique glass to jewellery makers. "Inlaying antique glass in women's jewellery is all the rage now. Today, a merchant who wants something like that has to order a robbery. If I have large surpluses I don't need, why shouldn't I supply it? What's the big deal?" 340 CURRICULUM VITA- MORAG M. KERSEL EDUCATION The University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, expected 2006 Doctor of Philosophy in Archaeology Dissertation Research: License to Sell: The Legal Trade of Antiquities in Israel The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 2000 Master of Historic Preservation 2000 (with Distinction) Thesis: We Sell Histmy: Issues in the Illicit Trade of Antiquities and Cultural Repatriation University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1994 Master of Atts in Near Eastern Studies and Anthropology Queen's University, Kingston, Canada, 1988 Bachelor of Atts (Honors) in Classical At·chaeology HONORS, GRANTS & SCHOLARSHIPS ======== ===··.-~,===,====,·= ===== American Schools of Oriental Research, Dorot Travel Fellowship (2005) P.E.O. Scholar Award, International Chapter P.E.O. Sisterhood (2004-2005) Cambridge Commonwealth Trust, University of Cambridge (2003-2005) Palestinian American Research Center, Doctoral Fellowship (2004) Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Doctoral Fellowship (2003-05) American Schools of Oriental Research, ECA Junior Fellowship (2003-2004) Dorothy Garrod Award, Depattment of At·chaeology, University of Cambridge (2003-2004) Ridgeway-Venn Travel Studentship, University of Cambridge (2003) Newport Preservation Society, Symposium Scholar's Fellowship (2003) Tweedie Exploration Fellowship, University of Edinburgh (2003) George Bidder and Thriplow Charitable Trust Award, Lucy Cavendish College (2002-2006) American Friends of Lucy Cavendish College Bursary, Lucy Cavendish College (2002-2005) American Schools of Oriental Research, Dorot Travel Fellowship (2002) The University of Georgia, Masters Degree Award ofDistinction (2000) Getty Conservation Institute, Research Fellowship (2000) Declined Victorian Society of America, Summer Program Fellowship, London England Program (2000) The University of Georgia, Graduate Assistantship (1998-2000) F. Classon Kyle Graduate Scholarship, University of Georgia (1998) Victorian Society of America, Summer Program Fellowship, Newport Program (1998) Kress Fellowship, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem (1993-1994) University of Toronto, New College Fellow (1992-1993) University of Toronto, Graduate Scholarship (1992-1993) Morningstar Graduate Scholarship, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem (1990-1991) 341 r HONOR SOCIETIES Elected to Sigma Pi Kappa, Historic Preservation Honor Society (2000) Elected to Gamma Sigma Delta, National Agricultural Honor Society (2000) TEACHING AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2005-Present Editor. Antiquities Market Section, Journal of Field Archaeology. Co-editor (with C. Luke) ofthe "Antiquities Market" an ongoing column that features corru11entary and atticles on the place of cultural heritage in the greater sphere of archaeology. 2005-2006 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Loudou Program, Uuiversity ofNotre Dame. Course: Ethics, Archaeology, and Law Designed and cunently teach an upper division seminar on archaeology, ethics, and law. In developing this course I incorporate as much of London and the environs as possible to ensure the students gain a true "study abroad" experience. The seminar includes debates, guest lectures, and visits to local museums, and sites of interest. 2005 Instructor, Uuiversity of Cambridge Coutiuuiug Educatiou Program, Madiugley Hall. Course: Politics, Archaeology, and Ethics Designed and taught a university extension adult education course. Course material covered ethical and political issues in archaeology, ranging from the excavation ofWWI trenches to the problems of archaeology, theft and tourism in the Holy Land. 2005 Instructor, Teaching Assistant, Departmeut of Archaeology, Uuiversity of Cambridge. Course: Heritage Module of the Core Undergraduate Cuniculum Led discussion sessions for undergraduate students in the heritage module for the Depattment of Archaeology. Issues covered included; presenting the past to the public, repatriations, archaeological heritage management, international legal conventions, and historic preservation effmts. 2000-2003 Consulting Preservationist. US Department of State, Cultural Heritage Office, Washington DC. Administration of the Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation ($1 million fund) established to provide monetaty aid to preservation projects in less-developed nations. Duties include review of proposals, grant writing and administering, and report writing, consultations with embassy staff and foreign nationals, acting as a liaison with US preservation organizations. 1993-1996 Field School Instructor, Egypt, Israel Egypt, Supreme Council of Egyptian Antiquities, US Government sponsored project Course: Archaeological Field Methods, Antiquities Inspector' s Training Taught surveying methodology and excavation techniques to Inspectors fonn the Supreme Council ofEgyptian Antiquities. Israel, University of California at San Diego Course: Archaeological Field Methods Designed and taught surveying methodology and excavation techniques to undergraduate students from Canada, Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 342 . r PUBLICATIONS AND BOOK REVIEWS Levy, T.E., D. Alon, Y.M. Rowan J. Anderson, M.M. Kersel, and M. Burton In prep The Settlement Center: Phase II Excavations in the Shiqmim Village- Stratigraphy, Architecture, 14C, and Social Change. In T.E. Levy, Y. M. Rowan, and M. Burton (eds.) Shiqmim: Subterranean Settlement and Society in the Negev Desert Israel, ea. 4500-3600 BC. (Shiqmim II) . Leicester: Leicester University Press. (Anticipated 2006). Brodie, N., M.M. Kersel, C. Luke and K. Walker Tubb (editors) In Press Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and the Trade in Antiquities. Gainesville FL: Kersel, M.M. In Press Kersel, M.M. In Press Kersel, M.M University Press of Florida. (Anticipated 2006). From the Ground to the Buyer: A Market Analysis of the Illicit Trade in Antiquities. In N. Brodie, M. Kersel, C. Luke and K. Walker Tubb (eds.) Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and the Trade in Antiquities. Gainesville FL: University Press of Florida. (Anticipated 2006). Book Review of Sus an Pollock and Reinhard Bern beck ( eds) Archaeologies of the Middle East. The Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research. In Press The Great Debate: Archaeology, Repatriation, and Nationalism. In C. Smith (ed.) Archaeology to Delight and Instruct. Active Learning in the Tertimy Classroom . . London: UCL Press. (Anticipated 2006). Levy, T.E., D. Alon, J. Anderson, Y.M. Rowan and M.M. Kersel In Press The later excavations (1990-1992) and the sanctuary sequence. In T.E. Levy (ed.), Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctumy at Gilat. London: Equinox Publishing Limited. (Anticipated 2006). Kersel, M.M. 2005 Archaeology's Well Kept Secret: The Managed Trade in Antiquities. In C. Briault, J. Green and A. Kaldelis (eds.), SOMA 2003: Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of Postgraduate Researchers pp. 79-83. British Archaeological Research Press. Luke, C. and M.M. Kersel 2005 A Retrospective and a Look Forward: A Decade of Cultural Property Protection. The Journal of Field Archaeology Volume 30 (2): 191-200. Kersel, M.M. and C. Luke 2005 Selling a Replicated Past: Power and Identity in Marketing Archaeological Replicas. Anthropology in Action, Journal for Applied Anthropology in Policy and Practice 11 (2/3): 32-43. Kersel, M.M. 2004 Kersel, M.M. 2004 Kersel, M.M. 2004 Buying the Past: Managing the Trade in Antiquities. Fellowship Report. A/bright Newsletter 53(3). Playing Fair, or, who is losing their Marbles? In Y. Rowan and U. Baram (eds.), Marketing Hei·itage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past pp. 41-56. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Book Review of Oscar White Muscarella's The Lie Became Great: The Forge1y of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures. The Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research No. 335: 101-103. 343 · Kersel, M.M. and C. Luke 2003 The Battle for the Past: Conunent. Culture Without Context: The Newsletter of the Illicit Antiquities Research Center Issue 12, Autunm 2003. Kersel, M.M. 2000 What About the Landscape? An Analysis of House Museums in the Deep South. Georgia Landscape. Levy, T.E., D. Alon, E.C.M. van den Brink, A. Holl, P. Smith, P. Goldberg, A.J. Witten, C. Grigson, L. Dawson, E. Kansa, Y. Yekuteli, Y. Rowan, M.M. Kersel, J. Moreno, N. Porat, J. Golden 1997 Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction at Nahal Tillah, Israel (ea. 4500-3000 BCE): An Interim Report on the 1994 - 1995 Excavations. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 307: 1-52. SCHOLARLY PRESENTATIONS "Competing Stakeholder Claims in the Legal Trade in Antiquities." Poster presentation, 5111 International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE), Madrid, Spain, April2006. "Publishing the Past: Some Shocking Statistics." Paper presented at the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, November 2005. "Looting in Palestine, Selling in Israel- Who Owns the Archaeological Artifacts of the Levant?" Paper presented at the Crossing Frontiers, Graduate Archaeology at Oxford Conference, Oxford University, Oxford, UK, June 2005. "Competing Stakeholder Claims in the Legal Trade in Antiquities." Paper presented at Which Past, Whose Future? Treatments of the Past at the Start of the 21 '1 Century, York University, York, UK, May 2005. "Good Faith or Good Face? The U.S. Government and Cultural Heritage Protection." Paper presented with Christina Luke at the Society for An1erican Archaeology Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City UT, April 2005. "Global Strategies for Combating the Illicit Trade in Antiquities." Paper presented at the 3'd International Conference on Science and Technology in Archaeology and Conservation, Dead Sea, Jordan, December 2004. "Collecting the Near Eastern Past: Motivating Factors for Amassing Archaeological Collections." Paper presented at the 9111 International Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan, Petra, Jordan, May 2004. "Ifl Don't, Somebody else will. ... Collecting archaeological artifacts in the Near East." Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting, Montreal PQ, April 2004. "To Prove the Authenticity of the Bible: Collecting archaeological attifacts in the Near East." Paper presented at The Creation of Symbolic Worlds Conference, British Association ofNear Eastern Archaeology, Reading, England, March 2004. 344 "Walking a Fine Line: Obtaining Sensitive Information Using a Valid Methodology." Paper presented at Making the Means Transparent: Research Methodologies in Archaeological Heritage Studies Conference, University of Cambridge, England, March 2004. "Selling a Replicated Past: Exploitation or Benefit for the Local Population?" Paper presented with Christina Luke in the "Resolving Conflicts in Heritage Tourism: A Public Interest Approach" session at the American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, Chicago IL, November 2003. "From The Ground To The Buyer: A Market Analysis Of The Illicit Trade In Antiquities." Paper presented at the World Archaeological Congress 5, Washington DC, June 2003. "In the Name ofTourism: Commemoration in Cape Coast and Elmina." Paper Presented with Gina Haney at the 3'd Savannah Symposium, Commemoration and the City, Savannah, GA, February 2003. "Archaeology's Well Kept Secret: Managed Antiquities Markets as a Potential Solution to the Trade in Antiquities." Paper presented at the Symposium on Meditenanean Archaeology, University College London, London, England, Februaty 2003. "Archaeology's Nasty Little Secret: Managed Antiquities Markets" Paper presented at the American Schools of Oriental Research Armual Meeting, Toronto, ON, November 2002. "A Double Edge Sword: Are Managed Antiquities Markets an Ethical Solution to the Trade in Antiquities?" Paper presented at Ethics and the Practice of Archaeology Symposium, University of Petmsylvania, Petu1sylvania, PA, September 2002. "Bones of Contention: Who Owns the Kennewick Man?" The Archaeology of the Mind and Body Symposium, Stanford University, Stanford CA, February 2002. "Playing Fair, or, Who is Losing Their Marbles?" Paper presented in the Marketing Heritage: Global Goods and the Endangered Past session of the American Antlu·opological Association Meetings, Washington, D.C., December 2001. "Bitten By the Bug, Agatha Christie in the Middle East," Paper presented in the Accounts of Travelers to the Holy Land session of the American Schools of Oriental Research Ammal Meeting, Nashville TN, November 2000. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND ASSOCIATIONS Invited Session Organizer With Patty Gerstenblith and Ellen Herscher "The Ethics of Collecting and Communicating the Near Eastern Past: The Obligation to Publish Archaeological Excavations." American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting, Philadelphia PA, November 2005: With Patty Gerstenblith and Ellen Herscher "The Ethics of Collecting and Communicating the Near Eastern Past: Academic Responsibility, Publishing and the Scholarly use of Materials Without Provenience." American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting, San Antonio TX, November 2004. 345 "Walking a Fine Line: Obtaining Sensitive Information Using a Valid Methodology.'' Paper presented at Making the Means Transparent: Research Methodologies in Archaeological Heritage Studies Conference, University of Cambridge, England, March 2004. "Selling a Replicated Past: Exploitation or Benefit for the Local Population?" Paper presented with Christina Luke in the "Resolving Conflicts in Heritage Tourism: A Public Interest Approach" session at the American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, Chicago IL, November 2003. "From The Ground To The Buyer: A Market Analysis Of The Illicit Trade In Antiquities." Paper presented at the World Archaeological Congress 5, Washington DC, June 2003. "In the Name of Tourism: Commemoration in Cape Coast and Elmina." Paper Presented with Gina Haney at the 3'd Savannah Symposium, Co111111emoration and the City, Savannah, GA, February 2003. "Archaeology's Well Kept Secret: Managed Antiquities Markets as a Potential Solution to the Trade in Antiquities." Paper presented at the Symposium on Meditenanean Archaeology, University College London, London, England, Februaty 2003. "Archaeology's Nasty Little Secret: Managed Antiquities Markets" Paper presented at the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting, Toronto, ON, November 2002. "A Double Edge Sword: Are Managed Antiquities Markets an Ethical Solution to the Trade in Antiquities?" Paper presented at Ethics and the Practice of Archaeology Symposium, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, PA, September 2002. "Bones of Contention: Who Owns the Kennewick Man?" The Archaeology of the Mind and Body Symposium, Stanford University, Stanford CA, February 2002. "Playing Fair, or, Who is Losing Their Marbles?" Paper presented in the Marketing Heritage: Global Goods and the Endangered Past session of the American Anthropological Association Meetings, Washington, D.C., December 2001. "Bitten By the Bug, Agatha Christie in the Middle East," Paper presented in the Accounts of Travelers to the Holy Land session of the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting, Nashville TN, November 2000. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND ASSOCIATIONS Invited Session Organizer With Patty Gerstenblith and Ellen Herscher "The Ethics of Collecting and Communicating the Near Eastern Past: The Obligation to Publish Archaeological Excavations." American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting, Philadelphia PA, November 20os: With Patty Gerstenblith and Ellen Herscher "The Ethics of Collecting and Communicating the Near Eastern Past: Academic Responsibility, Publishing and the Scholarly use of Materials Without Provenience." American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting, San Antonio TX, November 2004. 345 With Patty Gerstenblith and Ellen Herscher "The Ethics of Collecting and Communicating the Near Eastern Past: Fakes and Forgeries." American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting, Atlanta GA, November 2003. With Clu·istina Luke "Practicing Archaeology? Pillage Of Sites, Trafficking Of A11ifacts." The World Archaeological Congress 5, Washington DC, June 2003. HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD EXPERIENCE =·==~~~~==,==--===-=·========== Historic Preservation Cape Coast, Ghana US!ICOMOS International Summer Intern Summer intem with the US/ICOMOS International Summer Intern Program. Worked with the newly fmmed preservation conu11ission in Cape Coast, Ghana. Wrote design guidelines, set up the review mechani~m for architectural review and acted in an advisory capacity to various historic preservation programs in Cape Coast, including, a public m1 initiative, a homeowner grant rehabilitation scheme, architectural survey and promotion of heritage tourism. Summer 1999, Sununer 2000 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resource Management United States Field Crew and Crew Chief Responsible for organizing and supervising crew members on variety of archaeological projects in Canada, Maryland, Nmth Carolina, Puerto Rico, Texas, and Virginia. Also responsible for historic stmctures survey, ceramic analysis of various prehistoric collections and rep011 writing. Involved in all aspects of cultural resource management: historical research, archaeological fieldwork, recording historic and prehistoric sites and historic stmctures survey. 1985-1989, 1994-1998. Archaeological Field Work Canada, Egypt, Greece, Israel , Jordan, Pue11o Rico, and the U.S. Worked as an architectural surveyor, ceramicist, excavator, field walker, and oral historian on various prehistoric and historic archaeological projects. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Anthropological Association Archaeological Institute of America American Schools of Oriental Research Council for British Research in the Levant National Trust For Historic Preservation Society for American Archaeology US/ICOMOS (International Council ofMonuments and Sites) 346 UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Invited lecture "Selling the Past: An Analysis of the Legal Antecedents and Current Market for Antiquities in Israel" Institute of Advance Legal Studies, University of London, March 2006 Peer reviewer for Levant the journal of the Council for British Research in the Levant, 2005- Present. Invited lecture "We Sell History, but Should We?" Gm-rod Seminar Series, University of Cambridge, Department of Archaeology, February 2005 . Member ofthe ICOMOS International Committee for Archaeological Heritage. Volunteer reviewer of world heritage site nominations. 1999- Present. Member of the Committee on Annual Meeting and Program (CAMP) for the American Schools of Oriental Research, 2005- 2008 Library Conm1ittee, Lucy Cavendish College Cambridge, 2004-2006 Graduate House Representative, Lucy Cavendish College Cambridge, 2004-2005 Appearance on the History Channel documentary, Tomb Raiders: Robbing the Dead, 2003 Invited lecture "Taking Home a Piece of the Holy Land: Selling the Levant," Cambridge Archaeological Field Group, March 2002 Invited lecture "The Ghana Heritage Trust Heritage Tourism and Historic Preservation Project: Reviving the Community." The University of Cape Coast Department of Geography and Tourism, June 2000 347