Particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, universities and nongovernmental organizations, as well as UNESCO, have held innumerable meetings, workshops, and conferences on the subject of illicit traffic by. The “Illicit Traffic in Cultural Objects: Law Ethics and the Realities” workshop, however, is distinguished by two important elements. First, it emphasizes the importance of the issue for Asian and Pacific countries. Although there have been some meetings focused on the region of Asia—such as the meeting in Polonnaruwa, Sri Lanka, in 2003; one in Bangkok in 2004; and one specifically including oceanic countries in Brisbane in 1996—these are few compared to meetings held on illicit traffic in Europe and North America. The second aspect is the range of expertise of the participants. Though we are used to seeing dealers, archaeologists, and lawyers debate the subject, this workshop included on-the-ground managers, an expert in systems of detection, as well as specialists in particular fields such as underwater heritage, postconflict restoration. and criminology.
Recent developments in Asia led to a concentration on the problems of states in that area. Firsthand information on the difficulties of protection and restoration in a conflict torn country came from Brendan Cassar, who has been working in Afghanistan for UNESCO since 2003. Dan Potts, the first foreign archaeologist to enter the Baghdad Museum after its looting, presented its director with a computer (all of theirs having been looted) and other assistance on behalf of the Australian government, and he gave a moving account of the difficulties of the museum staff in the vandalized building. In both cases the reluctance of military authorities to work with cultural experts in such dangerous situations was very evident. Brian Egloff gave a detailed discussion on the illicit trade in relation to the Tam Ting Caves in Laos for more than 20 years between 1979 and 2010, emphasizing the importance of specific case studies that show the impact of illicit traffic. With images dated at the time of photographic capture, he illustrated the catastrophic loss of Buddhist images from the Tam Ting Caves, an active site of religious pilgrimage, where all the larger figures have now been taken. He also cited a report by a Lao expert recording the removal all over Laos of many smaller Buddha figures by tourists. Noting current moves for multitrade cooperation in the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) region, Egloff hopes that transnational means to combat the trade in illicit artifacts will be considered for inclusion, but the chances of such a development are very poor. Free trade negotiators try to minimize “restrictions on trade” in every category. Neil Brodie spoke on a number of well-known collections of Middle Eastern origin (mostly from Iraq) that have no documentary evidence of any ownership prior to that of the present collector. He also described the debate in professional circles of conservators and archaeologists as to whether it is ethical to provide any expertise for, or to work on, these collections. He also examined interesting information on the smuggling of cultural objects in the “Iraq War Logs” revealed by Wikileaks in October 2010.
Wang Yunxia dissected the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between China and the United States on the importation of antiquities, which resulted from extremely tough negotiations over 11 years. Among the various types of crimes involving cultural objects in China, half of them were illicit excavations of ancient graves. China has adopted tough legislation and joined the UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions in 1987 and 1999, respectively. However, it knew that it could not succeed in suppressing illicit trafficking without close cooperation with the international community. U.S. import restrictions now cover archaeological material from the Paleolithic period of China (75,000bce) to the end of the Tang Dynasty in 907, which has been designated by China, as well as monumental sculpture and wall art more than 250 years old. Furthermore, the archaeological objects must be of cultural significance and at least 250 years old, and they must have been discovered as a result of scientific excavation, clandestine or accidental digging, or exploration on land or underwater. “Ethnological objects” covers those created by tribes or nonindustrial societies that are important because of their distinctive characteristics, comparative rarity, or their contribution to the knowledge of the origins, development, or history of people. It is clear that these conditions are narrowly framed and that the U.S. government's “Designated List” covers only limited categories of cultural objects designated by the Chinese. There are also requirements for China to improve its legislation and management and to promote long-term loans of objects of archaeological interest to American museums for public exhibition, education, and research and to facilitate the granting of permits to conduct archaeological research in China. In 2011, 14 especially valuable archaeological artifacts were returned to China from the United States. Wang's analysis of China's efforts to increase its protection on the ground are most interesting, but it would take too long to detail them here (although they are well worth studying). Note the rather surprising news that China has since signed bilateral agreements with Australia, Egypt, and Turkey—a step that appears unnecessary because none of these three countries requires an MOU to implement the 1970 convention to which all three are parties. It has also signed one with Ethiopia which is itself not a party to the 1970 convention. Wang also refers to the difficulties of applying the restrictions of mainland China at the same time as continuing the policy of free trade in the autonomous regions of Hong Kong and Macau.
Efforts to enhance grassroots heritage preservation in Cambodia were discussed by Dougald O'Reilly: Both Australia and New Zealand, among many other donor countries, have been trying to help protect Angkor's archaeological heritage in reaction to the dramatic increase in heritage destruction in Cambodia since 2001. These schemes have been specially directed to the problems of poverty and education in the local community, but issues of governance are also critical.
Discussion of the issues in Pacific countries was restricted to Melanesia and Australia. Elizabeth Bonshek discussed collections of Melanesian material in museums, particularly the legacy of colonial collecting. She cited the statement of a member of the Lani tribe of West Papua, “You can't separate the object from the human being because the humans are part of the objects and the objects are part of the people,” and noted that the use of certain museum objects in court cases over land attest to an inalienable connection between people and some objects. Bernice Murphy, director of the Australia Museums Association, described the critical importance of ethical standards for museums and their distinctive but complementary role to legal rules.
Paul Turnbull, professor of digital history at the University of Queensland, contributed the story of the preservation of the remains of Aboriginals, Truganini (Tasmania), and Yagan (Western Australia)—in direct opposition to their stated requests—and the modern-day aftermath that has seen the return of hundreds of sets of “skeletal remains” or “ancestors” (depending on one's point of view) to Australia for disposal by Aboriginal groups in a culturally appropriate manner. Changing attitudes, including changes in the law, make fascinating reading for those not already familiar with these stories. Throughout the meeting Australian scholars were particularly conscious of the losses and returns of Australian Aboriginal cultural heritage from museums, although, most unfortunately, the invited Aboriginal expert of the Australian Museum (Sydney) was unable to attend the workshop. However, an exhibition of extraordinary contemporary art by Aborigines at the Art Gallery of Western Australia was an example of how a seriously undervalued and deeply damaged cultural tradition can continue, revitalize, and become part of contemporary creative art. The present director of the gallery, Stefano Carboni, himself an outstanding expert in Islamic art, is intrigued by the huge variety of styles used by Aboriginal artists in all parts of Australia. He has instigated The Western Australian Indigenous Art Awards, the richest indigenous arts prize in the country founded in 2008, a national award established to celebrate the breadth, diversity, and excellence of art from all corners of indigenous Australia. The 2011 recipient of the Western Australian Indigenous Art Award was Gunybi Ganambarr for his painting Milngurr 2011, which appears on the cover of this issue. He used ochre, earth pigment, and acrylic binder on rubber 97.0 × 77.0 cm, a recycling of conveyer belt material that is used widely in many mining projects and thus quite familiar to Aboriginals in those areas. Modern Aboriginal art using Western techniques (originally acrylic paint of board) is regarded as beginning at Papunya in the Northern territory about 1971. Modern Australian indigenous art has developed in myriad styles and is highly valued locally and internationally. While artists currently working are able to sell overseas, items more than 30 years old are subject to export control under Australia's implementing legislation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention.
On issues that are of general application, the lawyers were able to show a growing convergence of work in international law and criminology, which may be productive for better controls of the illicit trade. Ana Vrdoljak, the dynamic organizer of the workshop, discussed the Hague Convention and its protocols, as well as humanitarian law and the development of criminal penalties for their violation. Lyndel Prott discussed changes in public attitudes since 1970 and the evaluation of the 1970 Convention 40 years after its adoption. She saw as most significant developments in penology, which look upon the illicit trade and illicit traffic not as black and white but as gray all over. She also explored recent work by criminologists on “crimes of the powerful” and their ability to “neutralise” restrictive legislation such as the recent United Kingdom Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. Criminologists have also written on “risk shifting” in vulnerable sectors such as the art and antiquities trade and “market reduction” as a possible solution. Patrick O'Keefe discussed the UNESCO Code of Ethics for Dealers as well as illicit traffic in items of the underwater cultural heritage, noting that the strong provisions on this in the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage have so far attracted little attention. The criminologist Duncan Chappell pointed out that so far almost no resources had been given to criminologists to work on the problem of the international illicit trade in cultural objects. He also gave details about the illicit trade in southeast Asia—in particular on the transit points of Bangkok, Hong Kong, Singapore, Macau, and Vietnam—their significance in the illicit trade, as well as the similarities between the illicit trade in antiquities and other forms of illicit markets. He emphasized the failure of punishment as a deterrent and the need for alternative persuasive measures. Stefano Carbon, director of the Art Gallery of Western Australia, spoke of his experience as a curator in the Metropolitan Museum of New York and of his encounters with the issue of illicit traffic.
John Watling, a forensic scientist, explained new forensic technology which, without requiring damaging amounts of material to be removed from an object whose place of origin is in doubt, allows for its identification through the application of Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-IC-MS) to minute amounts of material with virtually unnoticeable trace of its abstraction on the object concerned. Thus the currently flourishing trade in fraudulent oriental ceramics may be dealt a serious blow by using this process to establish the provenance of artifacts of different geographical origin.
At the end of the workshop a discussion occurred on the public consultation, undertaken by the commonwealth government seeking opinions since October 2010 on a new cultural policy, a process commenced by a previous minister in 2009. Answers were sought for a number of specific questions. Various general goals were set out, for example, to increase public participation in cultural activities and better reflect Australia's cultural diversity, such as through touring programs, visual arts, support for indigenous creativity, and so on. However, little attention was paid to issues of preservation of heritage, which has a fundamental part to play in any cultural policy. For example, there was no emphasis on the issue of illicit traffic, a key issue for Australia's status in its region and in general, as well as an underlying fundamental principle of any respectable national cultural policy today. Some respondents refrained from answering the specific questions set, in a bid to have more fundamental issues of cultural policy determined. Participants in the Perth meeting agreed to Professor Vrdoljak's proposal that the workshop should make a statement in the consultation process. This submission was confined exclusively to addressing issues related to the protection of movable cultural heritage and curbing its illicit transfer, import, and export.
The papers presented in Perth are now being revised and collated. They will be published in book form in 2012.
