Plunder or Excavation? Observations and Suggestions on the Regulation of Ownership and Trade in the Evidence of Cultural Patrimony

A vigorous debate is presently being conducted between scholars and importers of antiquities about the effect that legal regulation will have on the looting of archaeological sites. Archaeologists argue that the demand for antiquities in wealthy nations has led to so much looting that soon there will be hardly an unguarded site worth excavating. Most scholars agree that lucrative black markets in the United States, France, West Germany, Switzerland and Japan are incentives to looting which damage the evidentiary value of objects and of entire sites. Whatever evidentiary value remains in items after their illegal excavation is further lost to the academic community because those items are then hidden and scattered in the extensive underground collections of investors. Using the same market-force assumption, governments of Third World "art-rich" nations complain that the flourishing antiquities trade in wealthy nations is stripping them of the birthright of their cultural heritage. As part of the North-South confrontation, emotions in this area of the debate have run high and the motives for regulation and reparation have been questioned the most. Dealers and collectors of antiquities, although opposed to unscholarly excavation, have opposed regulation on the premise that it will only deepen the black market and lead to a greater destruction or disintegration of antiquities. They disagree that market forces are at fault, and argue that the debate should focus on other reasons why archaeological sites are improperly excavated. These other reasons, such as accident and ignorance, do play a role. Most experts agree, however, that the role of these other factors is minor and beyond regulation. Rather, archaeologists and national governments have blamed the destruction of cultural heritage on that excavation which is organized and is based upon a combination of local poverty and high profits. Despite the international character of this market problem, the earliest attempts at regulation were both national and nationalistic. As emerging nationalism and self-determination required roots upon which to flourish, most "art-rich" nations passed legislation which strictly regulated the excavation and recovery of artifacts, and prohibited the exportation of cultural treasures. The fact that nationalism, rather than scholarly interest, was the prime motive for such legislation is evidenced by the fact that few nations imposed restrictions on items whose import might cause improper excavation in, or loss of the cultural heritage of other countries