The Schøyen Collection

It has been some time since LM commented on the incantation bowls from the Schøyen Collection and the discussion (including the report available via wikileaks).

A detailed study of the Schøyen collection is now available:
Prescott, C., and J. M. Rasmussen. 2020. "Exploring the “cozy cabal of academics, dealers and collectors” through the Schøyen Collection." Heritage 3: 68–97.
DOI https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage3010005

This raises important ethical issues for academics who are involved in the research on and publication of such newly surfaced materials.

Abstract
In the wake of the trade in ancient materials, several ethical and political issues arise that merit concern: The decimation of the cultural heritage of war-torn countries, proliferation of corruption, ideological connotations of orientalism, financial support of terrorism, and participation in networks involved in money laundering, weapon sales, human trafficking and drugs. Moreover, trafficking and trading also have a harmful effect on the fabric of academia itself. This study uses open sources to track the history of the private Schøyen Collection, and the researchers and public institutions that have worked with and supported the collector. Focussing on the public debates that evolved around the Buddhist manuscripts and other looted or illicitly obtained material from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, this article unravels strategies to whitewash Schøyen’s and his research groups’ activities. Numerous elements are familiar from the field of antiquities trafficking research and as such adds to the growing body of knowledge about illicit trade and collecting. A noteworthy element in the Schøyen case is Martin Schøyen and his partner’s appeal to digital dissemination to divorce collections from their problematic provenance and history and circumvent contemporary ethical standards. Like paper publications, digital presentations contribute to the marketing and price formation of illicit objects. The Norwegian state’s potential purchase of the entire Schøyen collection was promoted with the aid of digital dissemination of the collection hosted by public institutions. In the wake of the Schøyen case, it is evident that in spite of formal regulations to thwart antiquities trafficking, the continuation of the trade rests on the attitudes and practice of scholars and institutions.

Looting Matters for Classical Antiquities

Present Pasts, the Journal of the Heritage Studies Research Group at the Institute of Archaeology, UCL, has published a revised version of the lecture given in London in October 2009.

Gill, David W.J. "Looting Matters for Classical Antiquities: Contemporary Issues in Archaeological Ethics." Present Pasts 1 (2009): 77-104. [pdf]

Abstract

Forty years have passed since the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. In spite of this there have been major scandals relating to the acquisition of recently-surfaced antiquities by public museums and private individuals. The Italian government has obtained the return of over 100 antiquities from North American collections and these have been displayed in a series of high profile exhibitions. Greece and Egypt have made successful claims on other material. Some dealers appear to be willing to handle material that surfaced along similar routes in spite of this increased awareness of the problem of looting. North American museums have now adjusted their acquisition policies to align them with the 1970 Convention.

The UCL incantation bowls: did they come from Iraq?

I have noted last weekend's discussion of the UCL incantation bowls in the British press. I now see a Washington-based cultural property observer wisely notes that the newspaper article "fails to detail the basis for the conclusion that the bowls originated in Iraq as opposed to Jordan".

And there is the issue. The report has not, as far as I know, been placed in the public domain (though there is now a copy in the library of the House of Lords). But I can only assume that the compilers of the report would have looked carefully at the known archaeological find-spots of incantation bowls that have been retrieved by scientific methods. Do any such bowls come from confirmed excavated contexts outside Iraq?

UCL and the Incantation Bowls: new revelations

Michael Balter has reported on the Incantation Bowl saga at UCL ("University Suppresses Report on Provenance of Iraqi Antiquities", Science 318, October 26, 2007). The discussion is now about the commissioned report which has not been made available for circulation.

Lord Renfrew is quoted:

It is shameful that a university should set up an independent inquiry and then connive with the collector whose antiquities are under scrutiny to suppress the report through the vehicle of an out-of-court settlement.

The archaeological community was looking forward to reading this report because UCL in a press release of May 16, 2005 had stated that it would

provide a model for best practice in dealing with the complex cultural issues that can arise from such situations.

Is suppressing this report "best practice"?

UCL and the incantation bowls

UPI reported over last weekend ("Iraqi antiquities center of British battle", October 7, 2007) that the UCL inquiry concerning the incantation bowls from the Martin Schøyen collection took a new direction.

Colin Renfrew, a member of that inquiry, is quoted as saying in response to a decision to withhold the report:

"UCL tried to do the right and ethical thing by setting up a committee of inquiry. Then, when threatened with a lawsuit, in my view, it gave way under pressure".

No doubt the signs were there last March when The Times reported, "Tycoon orders university to return his ‘magic’ artefacts" (March 22, 2007). The 654 bowls has been loaned to UCL "for academic research purposes" back in 1996.

In 2005 The Times ("Museum inquiry into 'smuggling' of ancient bowls" [archived]) reported that the bowls "were exported from Jordan, but their country of origin may have been Iraq, the site of ancient Mesopotamia."

Michael Worton, UCL's vice-provost, was quoted as saying:

"until recently, most universities have taken a relaxed approach to the acquisition of such objects, with academic staff acquiring and publishing research and teaching collections. To restrict such activities would have been seen as restricting academic freedom. However, in the 21st century new principles and policies are emerging. In 2002, the UK signed up to the 1970 Unesco convention on illicit cultural trade and in 2003 the UK implemented the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act. Intelligence on the pillaging of archaeological sites has greatly increased and attitudes are changing."

If attitudes are really changing why has UCL really taken the decision to stop the report from being made public? And is it a little misleading to suggest "in the 21st century new principles and policies are emerging"? Staff at UCL have made their views known on archaeological ethics since the last millennium. (A copy of Antiquities: Trade or Betrayed. Legal, Ethical and Conservation Issues [1995] is sitting on my shelf.)

Not only does the report appear to have been buried, but money seems to have changed hands. A Joint statement from UCL and the Schøyen Collection: Aramaic Incantation Bowls issued on June 27, 2007 [mirrored] recorded:

"UCL has no basis for concluding that title is vested other than in the Schøyen Collection. UCL has now returned the bowls to the Schøyen Collection and has agreed to pay a sum in respect of its possession of them."

The Schøyen Collection website makes the interesting observation:

"Over two-thirds of all discovered incantation bowls have an unknown original provenance, as they are usually surface finds, rather than artefacts found in a particular strata or location of an archaeological dig."

In other words, over 65% of the all the known incantation bowls --- some 2000 --- do not have a recorded find-spot. (Conversely, and by implication, less than 700 have some kind of find-spot.) What are the intellectual consequences for their study?

Then it struck me that the case of these texts is not unlike the debate around "unprovenanced" texts and inscriptions which fall into the broad sphere of "biblical archaeology" (see "Intellectual Consequences for Biblical Archaeology?").

There is a petition concerning the "Publication of Unprovenanced Artifacts" sponsored by the Biblical Archaeology Society. I quote two of the points here:

7. We do not encourage private collection of antiquities. But important artifacts and inscriptions must be rescued and made available to scholars even though unprovenanced. When such objects have been looted, the antiquities market is often the means by which they are rescued, either by a private party or a museum. To vilify such activity results only in the loss of important scholarly information.

8. We would encourage private collectors of important artifacts and inscriptions to make them available to scholars for study and publication. Too often collectors who do make their objects available to scholars are subject to public obloquy. As a result, collectors are disinclined to allow scholars to study their collections, and the public is the poorer.

I notice that one of the original signatories is Professor Shaul Shaked.

And to complete the loop, the Schøyen Collection website informs us:

"Since 1995 Professor Shaul Shaked at the Hebrew University, the world’s foremost authority on incantation bowls, has taken on the Herculanean task of publishing the bowls in the Schøyen Collection ... The Schøyen Collection’s 654 incantation bowls have been housed at University College London for the convenience of Professor Shaked".