With
multiple antiquities scandals involving Hobby Lobby currently in the news, we
are seeing perhaps unprecedented attention to issues such as antiquities
trafficking, provenance, and archaeological ethics. One of many articles that I’ve
recently read on these topics, brought to my attention by Caroline Schroeder of
the University of the Pacific, is an opinion piece by Hershel Shanks (First
Person: Should These Looters Go to Jail, Biblical Archaeology Review, July/Augst 2017) (Shanks is founder of
the Biblical Archaeological Society and editor of the society’s popular Biblical Archaeology Review). Shanks
invites us to imagine a Bedouin (a “young” Bedouin at that) looting a cave near
the Dead Sea, discovering a gold artifact inscribed with the name of King
Solomon. He shows it to an antiquities dealer, who alerts the authorities, leading
to the arrest, trial, and imprisonment of the Bedouin; meanwhile, the artifact
is meets a sensational reception and becomes a priceless part of the Israel
Museum and Israeli culture. Shanks then compares his hypothetical to a real
life incident where the arrest of looters operating in the Cave of Skulls near
the Dead Sea leads to an Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) excavation.
In
many ways this op-ed is eye-rolling. It implicitly asks us to look favorably on
looting, to celebrate looters as heroes. Shanks and BAS have a history of
advocating for the publication of looted objects, despite the serious problems
of legality, ethics, and loss of scholarly information. This history includes
hosting a 2006 forum on unprovenanced artifacts slanted entirely in favor of
publication, centering on a “Statement
of Concern” that misstated the ASOR and AIA policies on ethics, and
asserted without citing any evidence that there is no link between scholarly
publication of unprovenanced finds and looting. (The work of Neil Brodie over the last 15 years
strongly suggests otherwise.)
But
one aspect of Shanks’s piece stands out and deserves discussion: the attention
he draws to a rarely discussed issue, the disparity between treatment of
looters and treatment of others involved in antiquities trafficking. As Shanks
writes,
What makes me feel the need to explore
the situation is the fact that the looters alert the archaeologists to the
existence of the other valuable finds in the cave and get sent to jail for it,
while the archaeologists learn from the looters where to dig.
Shanks
is correct: Looters face sustained criticism, including from scholars. This may
take an extreme form, like American archaeologist Elizabeth Stone urging
American soldiers to shoot Iraqis for the crime of looting in 2003. “I would like to see helicopters flying over there shooting
bullets so that people know there is a real price to looting this stuff … You
have got to kill some people to stop this.” Or
it may be more mundane: an unfortunate ASOR poster/banner at the 2014 ASOR
Annual Meeting described how, in the years after the initial discovery of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, ASOR “rescu[ed]” some additional scrolls from “Bedouin
looting”. What was omitted was that the Dead Sea Scrolls were only discovered in
the first place by Bedouin looting – and several ASOR scholars built careers
around those looted objects. The scholarly community criticizes looting even while
profiting from it.
The
antiquities trade involves looters, dealers, and collectors, along with various
middlemen. Of the three main groups, almost all of the burden of punishment
falls on looters. This is both unfair, and unsurprising, because looters have
by far the least power of the groups involved in the trade. Dealers and
collectors are generally richer, and often located outside the source countries
that tightly regulate (or outlaw) trade in antiquities – and so are beyond
their reach. No one calls for shooting dealers or collectors involved in
illegal acts on sight. Shanks has a point here, though motives for looting are
more complicated than mere subsistence looting, as demonstrated both in general
and for the Bedouin specifically by Morag Kersel.[1] Bedouin
often view looting as a profession, one that is traditional and has been handed
down generation to generation. They do not fit the oriental stereotype of “ignorant
locals” but are intelligent and resourceful, and knowledgeable about archaeological
sites and artifacts. But, more broadly, people are sometimes forced to loot
sites; looters can include children, who sometimes die in the
process.
It
is surprising that Shanks did not pick a different real-life incident to
illustrate his point – one
that mirrors his hypothetical almost exactly. In 2004, three Bedouin discovered
four fragments of an ancient scroll of Leviticus from the Bar Kokhba era (2nd
century CE); they brought them to an antiquities dealer in Hebron, who through
a second dealer in Tel Aviv was able to estimate the fragments’ value at
$20,000. Later the Bedouin brought the scrolls to the attention of noted scholar
Hanan Eshel and his research assistant Roi Porat, whose institution (Bar-Ilan
University) eventually bought the scrolls in early 2005 for $3,000, via a
donation by Swiss collector David Jeselsohn. After initial study of the
fragments Eshel turned them over to the Israel Antiquities Authority. However,
later in the year Eshel and Porat were investigated by the police for
antiquities trafficking; Eshel’s home was searched and he was taken by the
police multiple times for questioning. The scholarly community in Israel
rallied around Eshel, circulating a petition in Haaretz and insisting that he bought the fragments for “pure
academic interests”; that he “rescued”
(there’s
that word again) the scrolls; and for all of this was being treated like a “common
criminal.”
Many
of the details of the case are even now unclear, because of competing claims
from Eshel and the police, and because the news accounts are mostly slanted
toward Eshel. At least some of the most damning police claims appear to be refuted
by actual evidence given by Eshel. Nevertheless, the scholarly community sanitized
Eshel’s actions somewhat. Both Eshel’s purchase of the scroll fragments and his
failure to turn them over to the IAA immediately violated the law. Buried in
most of the discussion is the fact that the cave where the fragments were said
to be found is located in the West Bank, which complicates both the legitimacy
of Eshel’s purchase – the
police had considered charging Eshel with illegally bringing antiquities into
Israel – and Israeli jurisdiction. (The only news outlet to refer to the
location of the cave in the West Bank was ERETZ
Magazine in 2006, which described it as “technically across the Green Line.”)
There were "problematic aspects in the behavior of both sides,” suggested
archaeologist Isaac Gilead of Ben-Gurion University, in probably the
fairest assessment of the situation. But Eshel and his assistant were never
charged with a crime; the only ones charged, and eventually fined, were the
three Bedouin.
Embed from Getty Images
Above: Hanan Eshel holding photographs of the scroll fragments
Below: The fragments before cleaning
Shanks is surely familiar with this episode: between 2005 and 2007 he wrote a series of op-eds on it for the Jerusaelm Post, the Jewish Week, and his own Biblical Archaeology Review. In those pieces, unlike his hypothetical example above, Shanks came to the defense of the scholar Eshel while ignoring the fate of the Bedouin. By the time of Shanks’s first piece on the affair the Bedouin had already been remanded to a military court. But Shanks showed no concern for what had happened or would happen to the looters, in stark contrast to his 2017 piece. Perhaps Shanks has changed his views on this issue over the last decade. Or perhaps his primary goal, even in 2017, is to protect the privilege of scholars to study looted objects.
I’ve
come to believe that many people, including many scholars, while they may pay
lip service to the evils of looting, prefer to see looted objects on the market
– because it means more goodies for them to study and publish than could ever
be found in controlled excavation. Condemning looters (while protecting
scholars) is a convenient way to use the least powerful players in the
antiquities trade as a scapegoat and avoid meaningful change. The case of James
Charlesworth (a prominent professor of New Testament Language and Literature at
Princeton Theological Seminary) is exceptional but illuminating: in the Q&A section of a lecture first highlighted by Årstein Justnes (of the University of Agder,
Norway), Charlesworth expresses excitement at the poor Palestinian economy,
because (as he claims) Arabs are now digging under their houses and selling him
their finds more cheaply. Shanks’s
piece (whether it was argued in good faith or not) draws attention to how
vastly different such scholars are treated from looters – but then appears to
embrace an idiosyncratic conclusion (let’s honor the looters!). Instead we can
take other approaches, such as holding accountable those with the real power in
the antiquities trade who break laws and ethical codes.
[1] Morag M. Kersel, Christina Luke, and Christopher H.
Roosevelt, Valuing the Past: Perceptions of Archaeological Practice in Lydia and the Levant, Journal of Social Archaeology 8 no. 3
(2008): 298-319 (pdf).
See also Morag Kersel, Transcending
Borders: Objects on the Move, Archaeologies
3 no. 2 (August 2007): 81-98. This is based on Kersel’s research for her
dissertation: Licensed to Sell: The Legal Trade of Antiquities in Israel, University
of Cambridge, 2006.
4 comments:
Do you know Hanan Eshel from your years living in Israel?
Thanks for reading the post, Anonymous. I did not mention it in the piece but Eshel died in 2010. I did not know him personally prior to his death.
This is a response to your July 2017 piece in Hyperallergic, "Dispelling the Myths Around the Hobby Lobby Antiquities Case", as its own comments section is now inexplicably closed.
I take issue, firstly, with your general tone of moral self-righteousness, as if your very modern opinion of all that's bad about the global antiquities trade is superior to the thousands of years of shifting attitudes that have evolved throughout the lifetimes of the objects themselves, their creators, and their owners.
But I mostly take issue with your assertion, as if it were an undeniable logical conclusion that you only bother mentioning in order to underscore how obvious it is, that the ancient Mesopotamian artifacts found within the 20th century borders of the 20th century place known as the Republic of Iraq somehow "belong" to "the people" who hold passports with that government's name on them.
No antique from thousands – arguably even hundreds – of years ago is the cultural property of anyone alive today. The people and society of Asia Minor in particular have nearly no connection to the people who lived life in that part of the world long enough ago to have gossiped about it via cuneiform carved into raw stone. In fact, the current inhabitants of Iraq and every country around it emphatically abhor (and destroy, on an industrial level) anything from or pertaining to the tens of thousands of years of human history that took place before the violent, entirely intolerant arrival of Islam in the region. The Islamic State recently (perhaps the same day you published this) commissioned a professional film crew to record their members bludgeoning and pulverizing dozens and dozens of priceless ancient art and artifact in a university museum using sledgehammers, pickaxes, and power tools – before funneling the shinier pieces through their underground garage sale alongside the human livers, kidneys, and beating hearts of their foreign hostages and child sex slaves.
I can't imagine how you ever rejected that the world's heritage belongs, morally, to all of humanity equally. Was it because that would leave you with nobody to scold and lecture about it? Do you actually think there's any place better suited for the world's cultural heritage than the hands of its current European guards?
There isn't. Western Europe is superior in countless ways, but this one will surely prove to be among the most lasting.
Luckily the unparalleled thoughtfulness and sensibility of European explorers for the past few centuries has also lent an unmatched wealth and stability to the mother countries that, to this day, most cherish and respect the origins of the lands and peoples they discovered. Indeed, perhaps we take for granted that the two qualities – historical thoughtfulness and wealthy stability – coincide in one society, for there are too many among us today, like you, who fail to recognize that without the past several centuries of imperialist plunderers from the West and the priorities and practices they established, human beings would perhaps never have begun to value, cherish, or protect in the first place any remnants of antiquity whatsoever.
I know it's fashionable up in Cambridge to use phrases like "the people of Iraq" to "dispel" the world's "myths" using simply your own opinion by informing anyone who will listen of how very sinful it is to value any system in which Western authority proves its worth, but down here in Boston we don't hate ourselves enough to fall for that kind of contrived disingenuous bullshit.
I am actually pleased to read this weblog posts whiuch consists of tons of useful information, thanks ffor
providing these data.
Post a Comment