INTRODUCTION
The world’s cultural heritage is up against a series of devastating circumstances. Natural phenomena, extensive agricultural activities,Footnote 1 and, above all, lootingFootnote 2 are destroying cultural heritage of significant importance.Footnote 3 This devastation has many consequences. The greatest of all is the loss of ancient artifacts by which researchers may interpret the working of ancient societies.Footnote 4 Beside these consequences, many researchers have pointed out the connection of smuggling with the rise of organized crime. The involvement of criminal networks in antiquities looting is the most dangerous consequence, by far, of the smuggling phenomenon. Many researchers have devoted much energy and thought to this subject. However, comparatively little effort has been put into the study of forgeries, although the smuggling of antiquities also includes fakes and forgeries.Footnote 5 Individuals and museums in the Western world are hungry for ancient artifacts,Footnote 6 especially from countries with a long and rich cultural heritage.Footnote 7 This appetite provides a great opportunity and motivation for people and networks, in these source countries, to devote time and money to creating fake objects, which eventually are sold abroad. This article presents the results of an integrated study on forgeries as part of major-scale research project on the illicit trade of antiquities in Greece.
HISTORY OF FAKES
Fake archaeological objects have a long history.Footnote 8 There are many stories and cases centered on fake antiquities and fraudulent sales. In some cases, the deceived were famous museumsFootnote 9 and, in other cases, people, even ones with good archaeological experience.Footnote 10 Forgeries were used as the fundamental element for the construction of the distorted perception of the world on matters to do with ancient religion.Footnote 11 The rising demand for the export of artifacts, mostly from countries with a rich cultural heritage, both by individual buyers and/or museums, also affects the manufacturing of fakes. So large was the demand for Cycladic figuresFootnote 12 in the late twentieth centuryFootnote 13 that now a vast number of them are without provenience,Footnote 14 and, in the majority of cases, they are probably fakes. Often, perhaps more in the past, museum curators and, more generally even now, individual buyers do not care about matters of provenience, and, eventually, this apathy encourages the mass creation of forgeries.Footnote 15
RESEARCH
Archaeologists and researchers have pointed out the problems that impede a comprehensive review of the antiquities-smuggling phenomenon. The problem usually relates to available data of quality.Footnote 16 After gaining a special permit from the Greek police headquarters (Permit no. 2565/15/528492) and taking account of the Greek Law on Sensitive Personal Data Information,Footnote 17 a vast number of files from the Department against Antiquities Smuggling of the Greek Police (Athens office) were examined. The main aim was to make a broad study of the smuggling phenomenon with respect to forgeries. Work was conducted using the definitions set out in the Greek Law 3028/2002 on Antiquities,Footnote 18 with the later Law 3658/2008 on Measures for the Protection of Cultural Objects classifying forgery as a crime,Footnote 19 although not a particularly serious one, it would seem, and setting out the penalties for those caught trying to sell fake artifacts as originals. Article 10 of Law 3658/2008 declares a two-year prison sentence for those who import, export, hold casts, copy fakes and try to pass them off for sale as genuine. The authorities rely on these two laws to arrest smugglers and people who have made the forgeries.
DATA AND METHODOLOGY
The study reviewed 246 arrests in Greece spread between the years 1999 and 2009. All of these arrests and confiscations presented a great opportunity to study a number of important details surrounding the manufacturing of fake antiquities and the phenomenon in general as well. For a more sensitive understanding, two different categories, based on the confiscated context, were created. The first category refers to cases where the confiscated material included genuine antiquities that had been looted, alongside forgeries.Footnote 20 The second category refers to cases where only fakes/forgeries were concerned. In these latter cases, the authorities had to deal not with the looters but, rather, with the people trying to sell the fake objects as originals.
RESEARCH AIM
The aim of this research was first to examine how frequently fake antiquities appeared in these 246 arrests, noting the frequency of the appearance of only fake antiquities and then of fake antiquities alongside genuine antiquities. In addition, the goal was to examine the types of antiquities that were usually copied and to which period they belonged, the involvement of organized crime in these activities, and, finally, the social profile of all of the arrested people.
RESULTS
In summary, 36 of the 246 arrests showed instances of fake antiquities. In 29 of these cases, smugglers had also looted or stolen genuine artifacts—smuggled out from archaeological sites—with the purpose of selling them. In the remaining seven cases, the arrested people had only fake artifacts and were intending to sell them as genuine. For the accurate reckoning of all of the objects, five categories were devised. The first category concerns fake coins, the second marble heads of statues, the third vessels made of clay and/or metals. The fourth category includes jewelry of precious metals such as silver, gold, and bronze and, finally, the fifth concerns idols made of clay, stone/marble, or bronze. The confiscated fake artifacts are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1. Cases, objects, and indications of organized crime actions
The cases/arrests were an excellent opportunity to study in depth the situation with respect to fake antiquities. Not only was it possible to make a comprehensive list of the types of antiquities usually produced to defraud potential buyers, but it was also possible to go beyond this list because the official files contained crucial details about the phenomenon. In 29 of the 36 arrests, the looters had genuine antiquities, which had been illegally extracted from archaeological sites, plus fake antiquities. Thus, 80.55 percent of all of the cases combined fake antiquities with genuine ones. The remaining seven cases had only fake antiquities, which equals 19.45 percent. A more detailed breakdown of the objects and categories that were encountered during our research is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Five different categories of objects and the total number of confiscated items
Of the seized forgeries, there were 6,209 coins, 152 idols, eight vessels, seven marble heads of statues, and, finally, only two pieces of jewelry, equalling a total of 6,378 objects.
FROM WHAT PERIOD OF ANTIQUITY ARE ITEMS MOST OFTEN COPIED?
When forgers and smugglers tried to copy and/or present artifacts to potential buyers, they often relate them to some period or other of the ancient world. Of the total 6,378 objects involved, 3,913 of them (mostly coins) did not match the period to which they belonged. Therefore, these items were excluded from the following account about the types of objects based in a particular ancient period. In total, 1,433 objects were imitations of objects related to the Classical period (58.13 percent); 972 objects were objects related to the Hellenistic period (39.43 percent); 45 objects were related to the Roman period (1.82 percent), and five to the Byzantine period (0.32 percent). Five objects were imitations vaguely related to somewhere between the Neolithic and late Bronze Age (0.20 percent), and, finally, there was just one object that was a New Hittite imitation (0.040 percent).
WHAT OBJECTS WERE OFTEN COPIED?
Obviously coins are by far the preferred object when it comes to forgery. In total, 6,209 coins were confiscated during the arrests: of which 1,291 were Classical imitations (1,284 bronze, five silver, and two golden); 967 coins were Hellenistic imitations (904 silver, 57 bronze, and 6 golden); 45 coins were Roman copies (25 bronze, 15 silver), and, finally, only four bronze coins (made of bronze) were Byzantine imitations. In addition, 3,907 bronze coins had no further description assigned to them. Idols, made both of marble/stone and/or bronze were the second most common object to be involved in fraudulent activity. In total, out of the 152 idols, 140 were Classical imitations (27 made of clay, 76 made of bronze, and 37 made of marble); five idols were Hellenistic imitations made of clay, and another five were imitations belonging anywhere between the Neolithic period to the Late Bronze Age (one made of bronze, four made of stone/marble). Finally, there existed one bronze Roman imitation and one bronze imitation of the New Hittite period. Out of the eight metal vessels, five were made of bronze with no further description about the period they were imitating, and two were from the Byzantine period and made of gold. There also existed one vessel made of clay, with no further description as to its chronology. Fake marble heads of statues do occur. Of the seven that were retrieved, two were Classical imitations, four were Roman, and one had no further description. For jewelry, which was the least common category for smugglers/forgers, just one pair of items was represented: one was from the Byzantine period, made of bronze, and one was from the Byzantine period, made of gold.
MATERIALS OF THE FAKE OBJECTS
The materials that the forgers used in their efforts to create fake antiquities can be broken down as follows: 5,362 objects were made of bronze; 924 objects of silver; 48 objects of marble/stone; 33 objects of clay, and, finally, 11 objects were made of gold (see Table 3).
Table 3. Materials used for forgeries.
PREFERENCES
Even if it is extremely difficult to point to the preferences in antiquities smuggling in general, besides the preference for the small size of the objects,Footnote 21 it seems easy enough to spot one special and preferred ancient artifact, namely coins. The Classical period is often seen as the golden period for ancient Greek culture, and, thus, it is not surprising that the vast majority of the fake coins were trying to imitate coins from this particular era. It seems that it is relatively easy or safe for forgers, in their efforts for profit, to copy ancient Greek coins of this period—thus, all told, the vast majority of the fakes were from the Classical period.Footnote 22 Moreover, it is the bronze Classical coins that are most often targeted since the ancient city-states all over the Mediterranean minted excellent coins of this material. Since the Hellenistic period was one of great wealth, thanks to the spoils looted from the Persian east by Alexander the Great, the successor kingdoms minted excellent golden and silver coins for their citizens, and, thus, forgers have tried to create more Hellenistic coins made of silver than any other material. Roman and Byzantine coins were too few to reveal what, if any, patterns of choice were operating in this category. Most of these confiscations were made at major tourist destinations, such as Santorini and Delphi; every year, thousands of tourists visit these archaeological sites, and it can be safely assumed that the fake coins were intended to be sold to tourists (see Table 4).
Table 4. Confiscated fake coins in total numbers
Notes: The numbers probably reveal the preferences for particular coins from specific ancient periods.
ORGANIZED CRIME
Further analysis, based on the details of these official files, was conducted into the role played by organized crime in these transactions. A thorough examination showed that in at least 13 cases out of 36 (36.11 percent), the crimes had all of the essential details to be characterized as “organized,” according to EuropeanFootnote 23 and Greek law.Footnote 24 In many cases, the authorities were unable to arrest all of the participants, and, hence, these crimes were not officially labeled as being organized in the court hearings. A closer examination of the arrest files, however, revealed crucial details, and, thus, here at least they may be termed organized crime cases. These crucial details included the existence of a team for illegal purposes, the allocation of duties among the members, the involvement/corruption of the public sector, three or more persons participating as a team, profit from the illegal actions, and so on (see Table 5).Footnote 25
Table 5. Cases with serious indications of organized crime involvement
SOCIAL PROFILE OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN ANTIQUITIES FORGERY
The social profile of the people involved in cases of antiquities forgery was something that, from the very start of this research, excited interest and was one of the main goals of the project since a better understanding was deemed vital. An integrated piece of recent research has already proven the involvement of people with a higher status in antiquities looting activity,Footnote 26 so the social profile of the arrested people in cases that involved forgeries was a natural extension and so was subjected to a similar scrutiny. For better understanding this aspect of the research, 10 categories were determined based on occupation:
• business, including businessmen in general, merchants, and jewelers;
• freelance work, including a great variety of occupations such as drivers, hairdressers, bakers, car engineers, electricians, butchers, plumbers, economists, carpenters, coffeemakers, pastry cooks, writers, and sound technicians;
• private sector, including private employees in general, bank employees, and guards;
• public sector, including public sector employees in general, doctors, policemen, university professors, customs clearers, and kindergarten teachers;
• agricultural sector, such as farmers, cheese makers, small land owners, cattlemen, and small animal industrial workers;
• archaeology and fine art sector, including archaeologists, gallery owners, lithographers, musicians, sculptors, musicians, and conservationists;
• construction sector, including people working in the construction industry, such as civil engineers, workers, construction company employees, excavation machine drivers, gaffers, smiths, real estate employees, and builders;
• maritime activities, such as sailors and fishermen;
• individuals with unknown occupations; and
• other, which included out of the ordinary occupations that did not readily fit the previous categories such as the unemployed, housekeepers, students, and retirees.
It is clear from these findings that there has been a greater involvement of businesspeople and people with a higher status, and probably money and resources, in the forgery of antiquities. However, aside from businessmen, it is quite clear, and, to that extent, interesting, that people from all ranks of society are likely to be involved. People such as students, policemen, doctors, construction workers, real estate agents, public sector employees, freelancers, and so on are all participating in forgery and its promotion. The diversity of the involved people makes the prevention and detection of the phenomenon difficult since the authorities must potentially confront every member of society (see Table 6)!
Table 6. Profession’s categories and the total number of arrested persons in each category
CONCLUSION
In a financial world of many disturbances, risks, and uncertainties, the antiquities and archaeological artifacts market is a relatively low risk business in terms of investment for bona fide buyers and responsible museums.Footnote 27 But hundreds of numismatic sites all over the world are selling thousands of ancient coins every year, smuggled out of many countries.Footnote 28 Individual buyers are willing to pay great amounts for such antique objects. The tremendous number of fake objects involved in this one study—6,343—of which the vast majority were coins, highlights that this problem is significant and also has some intrinsic financial magnitude, which would benefit from further investigation. The high percentage of the cases that involved genuine antiquities (80.55 percent) alongside fake ones reveals that it is a profitable action that is attractive to both organized crime members (36.11 percent) and single individuals from all over the social web. Genuine antiquities are the bait for potential buyers, while the fake antiquities provide the real profit for their forgers. The sheer number of fakes is sufficient, if not fully identified, to obscure and distort scientific research on antiquities. Misleading results, as has happened in the past, may be the outcome. In particular, this “coin fever” is responsible for the vast number of fake coins, which this examination makes abundantly plain. Small in size, not so easily identified as fakes by potential buyers, and easy to transport without correct permission from the authorities, coins make the ideal objects to operate in. It is not surprising then that they total 6,209 pieces in the research. By compiling and assessing all of these different aspects from the police files, a unique opportunity to correlate and examine them emerged, shedding some light onto the various aspects of the forging and smuggling phenomenon. The significantly small (or insignificant) penalty for forgery is responsible, in the researchers’ opinion, for the large-scale involvement of people from all levels of society. While the forgery of antiquities seems harmless compared to the looting and smuggling of antiquities, the profits accruing from such actions is sufficient to attract gangs and organized crime members and, in this way, can destabilize any society.
