Conflict antiquities, myth, realities and evidence

The next Heritage Futures seminar will be given by Paul Barford. His title is: Collection-driven exploitation of the Middle Eastern archaeological record: Conflict antiquities, myth, realities and evidence.

This will take place at the University of Suffolk, Waterfront Building in Ipswich, on Wednesday 11 April 2018 at 4.30 pm.

Please reserve a place by following the Eventbrite link from here.

Abstract
Over the past five years or so, the press has been full of stories about the destruction of the heritage as a result of the ongoing conflict and rise of militant Islamism groups in places like Syria, Iraq and Libya. What we see is an echo of what happened two decades earlier in the aftermath of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, the Gulf War and invasion of Iraq, when museums and sites were looted and many antiquities were stolen to feed a voracious and expanding international antiquities market. During the social instability caused by external events, we can observe that whole sites have been utterly destroyed through artefact hunters digging deep and close-set looters’ pits across huge areas and pulling out what is saleable to collectors and leaving behind in a jumble what is not. Some of these decontextualised items are appearing on the no-questions-asked international market. Along with them are large numbers of the fakes (of varying degrees of deceptiveness) that the same market mechanisms allow to pass into the public domain masquerading as dug-up artefacts.

The shocking rate of destruction of the accessible parts of the fragile and finite archaeological record across a substantial portion of the broader Middle East region and its turning into a muddle of loose artefacts treated as a commodity for the private profit and entertainment of individuals in the market countries should be a matter of concern, as should the question of who is profiting from this trade.

In more recent years, the smuggling of the products of looted sites has been labelled a source of ‘terrorist’ funding that facilitates social conflict and violence. In particular, several factors have led to a focus on certain groups (such as ISIL) being blamed for these problems. There are obvious political gains to be had by promoting various aspects of this ‘fight for culture’. In addition, heritage activists see such claims as bolstering their call to take a closer look at the market for illicit antiquities and somehow curbing its activities. Several interest groups, especially those benefiting from the commerce in antiquities, and museum professionals, are therefore intent on representing the issue concerning the fate of illicit and ‘conflict’ antiquities from these areas in different ways. This means that the area is one where there is lively debate, but in which research on the topic is rendered extremely difficult, especially as those involved in the market itself has always been less-than-forthcoming about almost every aspect of the scale and mechanisms of the processes involved.

This presentation will focus on the issues surrounding the recent (1990 onwards) collection-driven exploitation (“looting”) of the archaeological record in Iraq and Syria. What can we say today about which sites are being exploited, what kind of material is sought, who is involved? Where is the material obtained being taken to? Where and when will it ‘surface’ on the market, and what mechanisms will be used to obscure its true identity? To what extent can this material be considered ‘conflict antiquities’?

Another aspect of concern is the manner in which this issue has been ‘weaponised’, particularly by the United States administration. Damage caused to the cultural heritage becomes an element of dehumanising propaganda directed against groups that are presented as ‘enemies of civilization’. An ethical question is raised by the manner in which archaeologists have been caught up in promoting these messages. To what extent is the information presented to and by journalists in such a context a balanced, or even true picture? What can we learn from recent seizures of antiquities from ISIL contexts in Deir Ez-Zor, Palmyra and Mosul? Is some of this ‘evidence’ planted?

The Eulenbruch honorific statue

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art inv. 2001.443
© David Gill

The history of objects in collections are fascinating: the movement of objects between different owners. This bronze honorific statue was received by the Metropolitan Museum of Art as a partial gift from Renée E. and Robert A. Belfer in 2001, with the remainder in 2010 [online catalogue entry].

The MMA's catalogue entry (2007)  [no. 212] dates the figure to the mid-2nd–1st century BC, and identifies it as an honorific statue of a "prominent" individual. The city where this statue was erected is now unknown, although the online entry (but not the print catalogue) notes that it was "said to have come from Syria". The authority for this statement is not provided.

Paul Zanker, in his Roman Portraits: Sculptures in Stone and Bronze in the Collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art (2016) no. 3, identifies the figure as an orator and dates it to c. 50–30 BC. Zanker observes that the folds of the drapery contain "many traces of soil" suggesting to him that the figure comes from "an excavation". The so-called excavation is not likely to have been a scientific one, or the statue would have been known. One also wonders why a statue that has been out of the ground for so long is presented as if it is fresh out of the ground. There is no mention of any analysis of the soil that could perhaps have given an indication of the findspot. Zanker suggests that the statue "presumably" was found in "western Turkey or neighbouring Syria". Does Zanker reject the MMA's view that the statue was (said to have been) derived from Syria?

The statue was purchased from Phoenix Ancient Art in 2001, the same year that it was donated (anonymously) to the MMA.

Phoenix Ancient Art has been the source of some other notable pieces:

• The head of Drusus Minor acquired by the Cleveland Museum of Art, and now returned to Italy after it was shown to have been removed from an archaeological store; it had been provided with a history that had placed it in Algeria in the 19th century.
• The Leutwitz Apollo acquired by the Cleveland Museum of Art; the bronze statue had been provided with a history that had placed it in Leutwitz before the Second World War. A discussion of the history can be found here.
• The Egyptian mummy case excavated (and published) at Saqqara in 1952, and was acquired by the St Louis Art Museum; it was provided with a history that placed it in a dealer's gallery in Brussels. The full history can be found here.

It is also important to remember the Etruscan architectural terracotta that was returned to Italy from the Princeton University Art Museum. 

It is claimed both by the MMA's online catalogue entry and in Zanker, that the statue was "Reported to be the property of A. Weber of Eulenbruch, near Cologne, Germany, from the late 1970s". The word reported suggests that there is no actual authenticated evidence that it did indeed come from Herr Weber, otherwise the entry would have said something like this, "Formerly the property of ...". 

The MMA felt that it could make the further acquisition in 2010 as it had received "part" of the statue as a gift in 2001. (See the AAMD Guidelines for 2008.) The exception made was: "The work was accepted as a partial gift in 2001 and has been exhibited publicly since 2007. Such over life-size bronze statues are extremely rare, especially ones of the quality of this piece. It represents a major class of Hellenistic honorific statuary not otherwise represented in the Museum’s collection."

The history of this bronze statue in the period before 2001 appears to be unconfirmed. Should the MMA reveal the nature of its due diligence process prior to the acquisition of the bronze?

The value of looting in Syria

Rick Noack has written a piece on the funding of IS ("The Islamic State’s ‘business model’ is failing, study says", Washington Post 17 February 2017) based on a report by London-based International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) at King's College London and Ernst & Young.

The report states that the amount of money derived from IS from Antiquities is 'unknown' though it suggests that some $110-190 million was derived from looting, confiscations and fines (in 2016).

For my work in this area: "Context Matters: From Palmyra to Mayfair: the Movement of Antiquities from Syria and Northern Iraq", Journal of Art Crime 13 (2015) 73-80.

Further damage at Palmyra

ISIS fighters destroy part of Roman amphitheater in ancient city of Palmyra, Syrian state media reports. https://t.co/2Qni0tGoJk

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) January 20, 2017

The BBC is reporting further damage at Palmyra ("Syria: IS destroys part of Palmyra amphitheatre", BBC News 20 January 2017). This includes the theatre (not amphitheatre) and the tetrapylon.

Cultural Property APPG Meeting (December 2016)

Westminster © David Gill

The Cultural Property APPG met this afternoon (see also statement from "Walk of Truth"). There were two main themes: the first, the movement of the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill through Parliament; the second, enforcement.

It made me reflect on what constituted cultural material with a "worldwide significance", perhaps prompted by some who wanted to ensure that they could continue to trade in low value pieces. (And readers might want to reflect on what pieces of cultural property have truly "worldwide significance".) Is there an over-reliance on the Red List (e.g. for Syria)? I have observed that some objects that appear to be derived from Syria and that are surfacing on the London market are in categories that do not feature in the list. Should we be concerned about them?

We await the formal minutes of the meeting.

Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill: Second Reading

(c) David Gill

The Hansard text of the second reading of the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill on Monday 31 October 2016 has now been made available.

Some highlights in the debate (that ranged over a number of cultural issues beyond the Bill) include:

• The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley): "We are lucky to have a highly professional and dedicated heritage and museum sector that works extremely hard to preserve our heritage and bring the story of our history to life. This work helps attract visitors to our shores too. We also have a duty to help protect the culture and heritage of other countries, for they are part of our shared inheritance as human beings."
• Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): "Can she assure the House that after the 62 years we have waited since we signed the treaty, there will not be another 62 years until the Government bring it into effect?"
• Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): raised an important issue about clause 17 and "unreasonable reason".
• Karen Bradley: "Although dealers will need to satisfy themselves through due diligence that there is no reasonable cause to suspect that objects presented for sale have been unlawfully exported from an occupied territory, existing codes of conduct already oblige dealers not to import, export or transfer the ownership of objects where they have reasonable ​cause to believe that the object has been exported in violation of another country’s laws. Dealers will not be required to carry out any further due diligence beyond that which they should already be conducting. In order to commit an offence, a dealer must deal in an object knowing, or having reason to suspect, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has pointed out, that it has been unlawfully exported. If a dealer takes temporary possession of an object for the purposes of carrying out due diligence or providing valuations, they will not be dealing in that object, because they will not be acquiring the object."
• Keven Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): "That leads me to one of the central concerns about the Bill. We will support it on Second Reading tonight and throughout its later stages. However, although the Bill has been brought forward in the context of the aftermath of the destruction of cultural treasures in recent conflicts, it does not, as I understand it, cover the actions I have described because they were carried out by occupying forces that are not recognised states. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the Bill will not necessarily prevent extremists from intimidating people into complying. In her response to the debate, will she tell us whether that comes within the Bill’s scope or powers?".
• Chris Bryant: "Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Museum plays an absolutely vital role—not only in this country, but in modern Iraq and Syria—in trying to protect many Mesopotamian antiquities? Indeed, the British Museum was in closer contact than anybody else with those who were summarily executed. While we are being nice to Government Members, will my hon. Friend congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on the fact that, from the moment he arrived in the House, he has pursued this issue?".
• Keven Brennan: "My hon. Friend mentioned the British Museum, which is a wonderful institution. If we are candid, however, we should recognise that our own hands are not necessarily entirely historically clean in relation to the removal of cultural property. That occurred in Britain’s colonial history, and it was used to build British wealth and power at the direct expense of colonised nations. Recent speculation concerning the repatriation of the Parthenon marbles to Greece, as well as campaigns to return the Koh-i-noor diamond to India and the Benin bronze cockerel to Nigeria, shows that the removal of cultural property reverberates through the centuries. I notice that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is shaking his head."
• Keven Brennan: "During the Second Reading debate in the Lords, Lord Redesdale mentioned the Ministry of Defence’s plans to create a squad of monuments men—and, presumably, women as well—whose focus would be to safeguard cultural property during armed conflicts. As I understand it, they would be soldiers with archaeology ​qualifications and the like. Meanwhile, the Department for Education has been campaigning against so-called soft subjects, leading to exam boards ending archaeology, art history and classical civilisation A-levels. The AQA explained its decision to cut A-level archaeology as follows: “Our number one priority is making sure every student gets the result they deserve…the complex and specialist nature of the exams creates too many risks on that front”— I am not sure how not offering an exam in a subject will make it any less specialist than it already is. On history of art, the AQA stated that the decision had nothing to do with the importance of the subject and “won’t stop students going on to do a degree in it”. That logic seems flawed to me. But it does not make a pretty picture overall, let alone a masterpiece, to have the Ministry of Defence wanting more soldiers with knowledge of art history and archaeology and the Department for Education cutting those same subjects from our classrooms, while the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is ratifying conventions and proclaiming that a national priority. "
• Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): "Cultural assets are also part of the world’s heritage, and we all have a duty to do our utmost to safeguard that heritage. For that reason, I was delighted when the Government established the cultural protection fund, worth £30 million, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), Chancellor of the Exchequer when the fund was established, and the Education Secretary, who was then Secretary of State for International Development, for their part in agreeing to that, as a large part of the fund can be classified as international aid. I also pay tribute to Neil MacGregor—he has already been mentioned—who was the driving force for the establishment of the fund. He and I launched it together, and, as the director of the British Museum at the time, he took responsibility for the first phase, a £3 million fund administered by the British Museum to send archaeologists into Iraq to advise and help in restoration where damage had taken place."
• John Whittingdale: "The Committee heard concern about one aspect of the Bill: the offence of dealing in unlawfully exported cultural property. The first concern was about the definition of occupied territories. At the time, we were told that it was a very narrow definition, or that only a narrow ​group of countries or territories could be considered to be occupied. In 2008, the regulatory impact assessment identified the Golan heights, East Jerusalem and the west bank. Unfortunately since that time, the list of occupied countries has grown—I draw attention to Crimea. For the purposes of certainty for those dealing in cultural objects, it would help if we clarified exactly which territories we consider to be occupied."
• John Whittingdale: "The fact that there have been no convictions does not necessarily imply that the Act is not working—it is important to have it on the statute book. I do not believe that this country is full of dodgy art dealers who wilfully ignore the law and deal in plainly illegally exported objects."
• John Whittingdale: "The art market is determined and supports the Bill. The last thing it wants is for this country to become a place where people can deal in unlawfully exported objects. It is worth bearing in mind that the market is hugely competitive and the third biggest in the world—it was worth something like £9 billion in sales in 2014. I would not like to see it inadvertently put at a disadvantage compared with other markets around the globe. I hope the Government bear that in mind. As I have said, I very much welcome their commitment."
• Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): "What Daesh is doing, in willfully desecrating and pillaging the artefacts in those sites, is a shameful and inexcusable crime against all of humanity. But let us be clear, not everything that Daesh is doing can be dismissed as simply malicious vandalism or an attempt to eradicate all traces of a pre-Islamic civilisation, as there is irrefutable evidence that when Daesh seizes a new city, one of its first acts is to plunder the museums and cultural sites for artefacts to raise much needed cash. Its looting of priceless artefacts is done for profit, and the flood of stolen antiquities being smuggled into the open arms of collectors across Europe and America shames us all. Michael Danti, a Boston University archaeologist who advises the US State Department on smuggled antiquities, said last year, “What started as opportunistic theft by some has turned into an organized transnational business that is helping fund terror”. Irreplaceable artefacts are being stolen from an already beleaguered people and are being sold on the black market to an unscrupulous but fabulously wealthy elite, whose money is funding Daesh’s murderous campaign."
• Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): "inally, I cannot resist the bait from the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). He talks about the Elgin marbles. I am afraid he does this great convention and the Bill a disservice by bringing up the Elgin marbles. They were, of course, purchased legitimately in the ​19th century. Not only that, they have been preserved to the very highest standards possible in the greatest museum in the world which, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) pointed out, is a world museum that is open to all, free of charge. The Elgin marbles are seen in pristine condition by millions of people. Indeed, they were recently loaned to Russia for even more people to see, which goes to show that the British Museum preserves the Elgin marbles not for any national self-interest, but for the world. "
• Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con): "Cyprus has witnessed its cultural and religious heritage fall prey to the policy of pillage, destruction and desecration instituted after the illegal invasion of the island in 1974, and during the subsequent and continuing occupation. Churches, chapels, monasteries, archaeological sites, libraries, museums and private collections of religious art and antiquities in the occupied areas of Cyprus have been systematically looted. The art treasure market of the entire world has for years been flooded with Cypriot antiquities from the occupied part of Cyprus. Sculptures, ceramics, figurines, statuettes, tools, weapons, frescoes, religious paintings and other works of art from Cyprus are routinely found at auction houses around the world, in particular here in London. I sought to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) to gently remind him that London is not only a centre of antiquities; it is likely to be a significant place for illegal antiquities, too. Research undertaken by The Guardian found the illegal market to be flooded with antiquities, and there are various reasons why the Government have not been able to stop it."
• David Burrowes: "Let me touch on the Bill’s wording, which has been a matter of concern to the Association of Art & Antique Dealers and others. Clause 17 in part 4 needs careful attention, and we will no doubt hear more from Members about it. It is worth noting that the National Police Chiefs Council lead for heritage and cultural property crime, who should be commended and for whom resources for the enforcement effort are important, said that given that dealers in cultural property are expected to conduct due diligence checks, they would be unlikely to fall foul of the objective test of “reason to suspect”. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport impact assessment is in agreement with that, which is perhaps not surprising."
• Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con): "Most of the Bill is about the illicit trade, and we must shrink the demand for these works in the world today. Contrary to some of the remarks made in passing this evening, the UK is very good in this regard. We are not the epicentre of the illicit trade in art and antiquities; that is to be found in the Gulf states, in China, in Russia and in other parts of the world. The UK is actually at the forefront of having responsible dealers and major auction houses who care about their reputations, but that is all the more reason for us to do this and lead the world in enforcement. I want to say a few words about the offence of dealing unlawfully in exported property. We must tackle this issue, and I would like to think that the Minister would give this further thought on Report. This matters because, if we want to shrink the illicit market, we have to defend the legitimate market. The great auction houses such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s actually have very little interest in maintaining their antiquities departments; antiquities account for 1% or less of the turnover of such auction houses. It would be very easy for them and for experienced legitimate dealers to walk away from this trade, and that would matter because it would push more objects on to the black market and on to smaller auction houses that lack the compliance and legal and regulatory structures to do due diligence properly, and it would push out good dealers and give trade to those we are more concerned about."
• Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): "Beyond that, I urge the Government to consider what effect this provision will have on the art market here in London. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, who speaks with the advantage of being not only a lawyer, but a former director of Christie’s, this will have a stifling effect. It may be that there will not be many convictions or many arrests, but the mere threat of the reputational damage caused by this possibility is enough to put the mockers on this valuable and entirely legitimate aspect of the London art market. The art market will go elsewhere and the crooks will get away with it. If we want to catch the bad boys, and if we want to inhibit this wrong and immoral market, why not stick to the 2003 wording or something similar to it, rather than allowing this Bill to contain an error of principle which could confound the interests of all of us who wish to see the destruction and the dealing in cultural objects that have been stolen brought to an end?"
• Tim Loughton: "Iraqi intelligence claims that Daesh alone has collected more than $40 million from the sale of artefacts. It is the equivalent of what the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan through the cultivation and sale of heroin to feed markets in the west. We took that very seriously and it was a priority for the invading and occupying forces in that country, yet the devastation and profit involved in the plundering of these archaeological sites and the sale of antiquities does not seem to register nearly as clearly on the world’s radar. This is an important part of putting that case firmly on the world’s agenda.​"
• Tracey Crouch: "If I may, I will explain the Government’s position on clause 17. As dealers should be carrying out due diligence for any piece of cultural property that they wish to buy or sell, in accordance with industry standards, we do not consider that the legislation imposes any extra burdens on those in the art industry. In order for a criminal case ​to proceed, the prosecution must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and that there is enough evidence that prosecution is needed in the public interest. Where there is credible evidence to suggest that an object may have been unlawfully exported, we consider that a dealer would not be acting in good faith if they proceeded in a deal involving that object unless further due diligence were undertaken to rebut that evidence. On that basis, we do not believe that honest dealers should be concerned about the risk of prosecution."

The UK Intends to Ratify the Hague Convention

© David Gill

The Queen's Speech today highlighted legislation for the year ahead (BBC May 18, 2016). This highlights:

Cultural Property Bill (UK-wide) 

• The UK to ratify the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of armed conflict

• Dealing in cultural property illegally exported from occupied territory to be made criminal offence 

• Property protected under the convention and its protocols to be identified by new Blue Shield

The briefing notes for the speech identify this as the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill. It identifies the main elements as:

The Bill would introduce a number of measures that would enable the UK to ratify the [Hague] Convention and its two Protocols: 

● Introduction of offences designed to protect cultural property in the event of an armed conflict at home and abroad. These include an offence of making such property the object of attack. 

● Introduction of the Blue Shield as an emblem that signifies cultural property protected under the Convention and its two Protocols. 

● Introduction of an offence of dealing in cultural property that has been illegally exported from occupied territory and a provision for such property to be seized and returned to the occupied territory after the close of hostilities, where appropriate. 

● Introduction of immunity from seizure for cultural property in the UK which is being transported for safekeeping during a conflict between two or more other states.

Clearly some of the driving force behind the proposed legislation relates to the present conflict in Syria and northern Iraq.

ISIS and The Missing Treasures

Reporter Simon Cox investigates the looting and subsequent sale of antiquities from Syria in this episode of Channel 4's Dispatches (18 April 2016). The programme discusses a lintel known to have come from Syria and on offer in London; a manuscript in Copenhagen; and an intercepted consignment.

The programme can be viewed here for the next 29 days.

Lintel from Syria for sale in London

Reporter Simon Cox talked about one of the objects from Syria that he identified for sale in London on BBC Radio 4 Today (18 April 2016; 2:53).

Despite their stated aim of destroying ancient cultural heritage, the so-called Islamic State have been looting Syria and Northern Iraq and selling the antiquities they find to raise money for their activities. It has now becoming apparent that some of those artifacts may be ending up on the market in London. Simon Cox is the BBC’s investigative reporter and Dick Ellis is former head of the Metropolitan Police's Art and Antiques squad.

Cox reminds of the satellite images showing the amount of looting taking place in Syria. He talks about the offering of a lintel from Syria in a Mayfair gallery. He talks about the 'invoice' from 2007 but it does not give any details (and need not be associated with the lintel). He acknowledged the difficulty of identifying material that had been looted by IS.

Former police officer Dick Ellis is critical of the law enforcement agencies in the UK: "a perfect example of the laws not working", "not actively policed by the police in the country". He points out the legislation that could be used to enforce interception. He also reminds us that the Art and Antiques Squad only operate 'for London'.

Today quotes the Home Office statement that mentions the way that it consults museum officials.

Cox was the reporter for BBC Radio 4's File on 4 investigation in February 2015.

Losing Knowledge: A Challenge for Archaeology

One of the greatest challenges to archaeology is the rapid loss of archaeological contexts. Archaeological sites have always been seen as a source of acquirable material: think of the Etruscan and Campanian cemeteries providing the 'vases' for the great collections of northern Europe. The construction of roads, housing and other infrastructure projects have inevitably cut into archaeological sites. One of the most imaginative responses was the creation of station museums on the Athens Metro to display the finds.

The industrial scale of looting at Mediterranean region sites from the 1970s has been highlighted by the revelations of the Medici conspiracy. Each lorryload of material that is returned from warehouse facilities in Switzerland represents 100s of archaeological contexts that have been destroyed and left (largely) unrecorded. Over 300 objects have been returned from North American public and private collections. Their acquisition in the first place reflects a passion for acquisition that was not matched by a professional desire to retain information.

In the UK there is the challenge that metal-detectorists continue to search unrecorded archaeological sites and remove the items without (always) asking for professional archaeological advice. The Roman cavalry parade helmet that was said to have been found at Crosby Garrett in Cumbria not only has no confirmed findspot, but it has now passed into private hands and is not available for regular public display. One of the most notorious recent examples was the removal of the Lenborough Hoard from a known archaeological site that appears in the Historic Environment Record (HER). Known archaeological sites are being deliberately searched, such as the Roman Saxon Shore fort at Bradwell on Sea in Essex. This is particularly tragic as part of the site has been lost due to coastal erosion.

One of the most pressing challenges is the preservation of archaeological sites in Syria and northern Iraq. The world's media have commented on the deliberate public destruction of monuments at the World Heritage site of Palmyra (e.g. noted here). At the same time there is evidence that archaeological sites in Syria are being systematically looted, and that some of this material is ending up on the market in London (e.g. discussed here). There needs to be wider public debate by archaeologists highlighting the loss of knowledge to the world's unique and irreplaceable heritage.

• The Grand Challenges for Archaeology: a Blogging Carnival

Syria and Iraq, a Continued Black Market and a Cycle of Corruption

Michael Peppard of Fordham University has been talking about the destruction of archaeological sites in Syria and Iraq (Matthew Bell, "ISIS wants to erase the Middle East’s Christian history — and make a few bucks along the way", WGBH News, January 22, 2016). He reflects on the destruction of the monastery of St Elijah.

Peppard talks about the looting of sites in Syria to raise funds for IS.

“Anything that is portable, that has been discovered, for example, through a systematized looting operation, is being monetized and used as a currency and sold abroad.”

The report then continues with the astonishing:

There could be one tiny shred of good news here. If ISIS continues to facilitate the excavation and sale of artifacts, that means some antiquities could potentially make their way into the hands of experts who could learn from them and preserve them for future generations.

Is the report suggesting that "experts", by which I would understand museum curators and others who acquire ancient "art", pay money to acquire archaeological material that has been derived from such a source? Is it suggesting that it is acceptable to loot so long as that the objects are acquired by somebody who will "preserve" the objects? Do the acquirers reflect on who gains financially from such an arrangement?

Antiquities from Syria and the London market

© David Gill

I have read Judith H. Dobrzynski's article "Antiquities and ISIS: Something Doesn’t Add Up" in the Artsjournal blog for January 15, 2016 with interest. She notes:

What I discovered, for one thing, is that actual examples of ISIS-looted antiquities on the market are slim to none. True, it may be that objects looted now are being kept in warehouses, for later sale–but that doesn’t finance ISIS now. Also true. the goods may not be coming into the U.S. market. The antiquities dealers I spoke with said they had not seen anything on these shores from looted areas since ISIS began its jihad. 

One of the things that I think is exercising many of us is the indication "ISIS-looted". Unless an object is photographed during the looting process it is unlikely that we can be 100 per cent certain about who has looted it. (But remember the fall-out from the Medici, Becchina, and Schinousa photographic archives.)

Commentators seem to be overlooking London. Last February I can remember looking round a small number of galleries in central London with a team from BBC Radio 4's "File on 4". I was expecting to see a small number of objects that could have been derived from Syria but I was overwhelmed by what we found. (Listen to the tone in my voice.) This research was broadcast in February 2015 both on BBC Radio 4 and subsequently on the BBC World Service. I covered the story here (with link to online BBC programme). My observations and reflection on the programmes were published by the Journal of Art Crime ("Context Matters: From Palmyra to Mayfair: the Movement of Antiquities from Syria and Northern Iraq") in 2015 (and the article is available here).

Then there was an article in the summer relating to further observations about the London market (noted on LM here). This appeared in The Guardian ("Looted in Syria – and sold in London: the British antiques shops dealing in artefacts smuggled by Isis", 3 July 2015).

Mark Altaweel is surprised at how easy it is. A few hours into a hunt around London, the near-east specialist from the UCL Institute of Archaeology has uncovered objects that, he says, are “very likely to be coming from conflict regions” in Iraq and Syria. The items – pieces of early glass; a tiny statue; some fragments of bone inlay – range from the second to fourth centuries BC. Altaweel says they are so distinctive that they could only have come from a particular part of the region: the part now controlled by the so-called Islamic State. That we were able to find such items openly sold in London “tells you the scale – we’re just seeing the tail end of it,” he says.

The article refers back to the BBC programme and quotes me:

Today, other experts assume that similar routes are being used for looted goods coming out of Syria and Iraq. “It’s just the way the market works,” says David Gill ... Looted goods are “coming out through Turkey and Beirut and then containered to who knows where”. By the time an object gets to London, he says, it “has paperwork, internally, within Europe”.

I have been round a number of galleries in London since February. Some have disappeared, but each time I have been able to identify material that is likely to have come from Syria.

I am aware that further research is being conducted in this area and will be made public in due course. (I am lecturing on this topic next week.)

There is also scope to look at material from Syria for sale online and through social media. (But I will be addressing these routes elsewhere.)

But for now it would be worth some of the commentators talking to those of us who have tramped round the streets of London to gather evidence.

Journal of Art Crime Fall 2015

The Fall 2015 number of the Journal of Art Crime vol. 14 has been published.

Readers of LM will be particularly interested in the following essays:

• Christos Tsirogiannis, 'Due diligence? Christie's Antiquities Auction, London, October 2015', pp. 27-38
• Francesco Rutelli, 'The return of iconoclasm: barbarian ideology and destruction by ISIS as a challenge for modern culture, not only for Islam', pp. 55-60
• David W. J. Gill, 'Context Matters. Malibu Memoirs: Marion True breaks silence', pp. 65-72
• Laurie Rush, 'The Carabinieri, peacekeeping and foreign relations: the Carabinieri mission to Iraq', pp. 73-80
• 'Stefano Alessandrini, Looting and passion of Greek vases from Etruria and Magna Graecia: the birth of the great collections', pp. 81-86

| |

Archaeological Material from Syria Seized in Turkey

There are reports that Syria would like details of some 2000 objects seized in Turkey (Shadia Nasralla, "Syrian antiquities chief says Turkey refuses to return looted art", Reuters, December 11, 2015). What is important about this report is the note on the level of seizures:

The 2,000 objects seized in Turkey compare with 6,500 recovered by Syrian authorities from smugglers, 300 seized by Jordanian authorities and 90 returned to Syria from Lebanon since the beginning of the war, according to Abdulkarim.

Earlier in the year BBC reporter Simon Cox reported on some of the material that had been seized in Lebanon ("Are looted antiquities from Syria funding IS?", BBC News February 18, 2015). These reported seizures are likely to be the tip of the iceberg. Where is the other material that has not been intercepted?

Cox was able to identify some material that was appearing in London ("Islamic State: Looting for Terror", BBC File on 4, February 22, 2015).

Temple of Bel at Palmyra destroyed: confirmation

Satellite imagery supplied by the UN has confirmed the destruction of the Temple of Bel at Palmyra (released via the BBC). There had been suggestions that the destruction had been partial.

Palmyra: Temple of Bel destroyed

The BBC is now reporting that the Temple of Bel at Palmyra has been partially destroyed ("Syria's Palmyra Temple of Bel 'severely damaged' by IS", BBC News August 31, 2015). This is the latest in a sequence of deliberate destruction of this UNESCO World Heritage site.

Temple of Baal Shamin: satellite images of destruction

Palmyra, February 2014

The BBC has circulated images of the destruction of the temple of Baal Shamin at Palmyra (Jonathan Amos, 'Palmyra: Satellite image of IS destruction', BBC News August 28, 2015). The satellite shots were taken on 25 August 2015 - and there is a comparison shot of 22 May.

The Google Earth image was taken in February 2014, and the temple of Baal Shamin can be seen at the top of the picture.

UNESCO on the Temple of Baal Shamin

UNESCO has issued a statement on the reported destruction of the temple of Baal Shamin at Palmyra.

UNESCO stands by all Syrian people in their efforts to safeguard their heritage, a heritage for all humanity

• Director-General Irina Bokova firmly condemns the destruction of Palmyra's ancient temple of Baalshamin, Syria

Palmyra, Temple of Baal Shamin

Temple of Baal Shamin (Wood 1753)

It is being widely reported that the temple of Baal Shamin at Palmyra has been deliberately destroyed. The temple featured in Robert Wood's Temples of Palmyra, otherwise Tadmor, in the desert (London 1753). The ruins had been observed in 1751 (with James Dawkins).

The temple carries an inscription, dated to AD 130/31, in the wake of the visit of the emperor Hadrian to the city. The temple was initiated by Malé son of Yarhai.

Parts of the sanctuary are dated epigraphically to AD 23.

I was asked to comment for the BBC with live interviews this morning for BBC 24 and BBC World, and prerecorded interviews for BBC World Service and BBC1.

Looting in Syria

Rachel Shabi has written a carefully researched piece on Syrian antiquities are that are being offered for sale in London ('Looting in Syria - and for sale in the UK', The Guardian Saturday 4 July 2015, 32-33). This builds on earlier observations explored in the BBC Radio 4 File on Four programme.