Antiquities Crime as a Policy Problem

Abstract

As the title of this volume indicates, the topic of archaeological looting is usually thought of as a subset of the larger category of art crime, analyzable using the same general approaches as those used to describe and model the theft of artworks. That is no surprise. The underlying assumption, that archaeological materials and artworks are the same kind of things, is deeply embedded in our language and our cultural institutions. So, for example, while we do at least sometimes distinguish “antiquities” from “antiques” in everyday speech, we very seldom distinguish “archaeological materials” from either, and under “antiquities” we include all sorts of ancient artifacts and artworks that were never buried, forgotten, and subsequently excavated. Our universal museums, in turn, collect, study, and display both works of art and antiquities, including antiquities that were excavated, generally displaying the latter as if they were works of art. If there is any difference marking archaeological material (aside from the difference that makes some material saleable and other material mere detritus), it is small enough to be poo-pooed: as the Metropolitan Museum’s director, Philippe de Montebello once put it, “How much more would you learn from knowing which particular hole… [the Euphronios krater] came out of? Everything is on the vase.”‘¹