Why There is Still an Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects and What We can do About It

N. Brodie; M.M. Kersel; S. Mackenzie; I. Sabrine; E. Smith; D. Yates

doi:10.1080/00934690.2021.1996979

Why There is Still an Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects and What We can do About It

N. Brodie
, M.M. Kersel
, S. Mackenzie
, I. Sabrine
, E. Smith
, D. Yates^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Fifty years after the adoption of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the illicit trade in cultural objects endures, with harmful consequences to local communities, knowledge acquisition, and archaeological landscapes and objects. In this article, we present a gap analysis to assess under-performing policy and practice. We argue that a poor understanding of how the trade is organized and operates and of how it might be regulated hinders effective policy formulation. Funding structures which encourage short-term ad hoc research and inhibit information sharing are in part responsible for some of the gaps. We conclude by suggesting how sustained theoretically informed, evidence-led collaborative analyses might help reduce or mitigate these problems, preventing another 50 years of illicit trade.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	117-130
Number of pages	14
Journal	Journal of Field Archaeology
Volume	47
Issue number	2
Early online date	9 Nov 2021
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2021.1996979
Publication status	Published - 17 Feb 2022

Keywords

cultural policy
antiquities trafficking
heritage crime
antiquities market
ethics
UNESCO
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
CRIME
TRAFFICKING
RESPONSES
POLICY
SYRIA

Access to Document

10.1080/00934690.2021.1996979Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

TRANSFORM: Trafficking Transformations: objects as agents in transnational criminal networks
Yates, D. (Primary Investigator), Hübshcle, A. (Co-Investigators), Mackenzie, S. (Co-Investigators), Berzina, D. (Co-Investigators), Heim, J. (Co-Investigators) & Peacock, E. (Co-Investigators)
European Research Council
1/01/20 → 1/07/25
Project: Research

Cite this

@article{d5da4b2cac5a455a8e52621d7c44a27a,

title = "Why There is Still an Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects and What We can do About It",

abstract = "Fifty years after the adoption of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the illicit trade in cultural objects endures, with harmful consequences to local communities, knowledge acquisition, and archaeological landscapes and objects. In this article, we present a gap analysis to assess under-performing policy and practice. We argue that a poor understanding of how the trade is organized and operates and of how it might be regulated hinders effective policy formulation. Funding structures which encourage short-term ad hoc research and inhibit information sharing are in part responsible for some of the gaps. We conclude by suggesting how sustained theoretically informed, evidence-led collaborative analyses might help reduce or mitigate these problems, preventing another 50 years of illicit trade.",

keywords = "cultural policy, antiquities trafficking, heritage crime, antiquities market, ethics, UNESCO, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES, CRIME, TRAFFICKING, RESPONSES, POLICY, SYRIA",

author = "N. Brodie and M.M. Kersel and S. Mackenzie and I. Sabrine and E. Smith and D. Yates",

note = "Funding Information: IGOs and INGOs are not exempt from this criticism. We have experienced what could be called claim-staking or territoriality among IGOs and INGOs that are ostensibly concerned with deciding or guiding policy but which appear to be more interested in protecting their own perceived mandates or attracting funding to support their ongoing activities. This is understandable, as we are all vying for financial support of our work. Certain IGOs and INGOs assert competence and authority in trade-related issues within the public and policy spheres, claiming that other stakeholder groups should accept their policy guidance or be excluded from the policy-making process. In our experience, the competence of an IGO or INGO reflects the competence of its individual officers, which sometimes is excellent but other times falls short. Some of these IGOs and INGOs seem to view other stakeholder groups more as competitors than as colleagues, sometimes siloing information from each other and from other stakeholders to the detriment of collaboration and innovation. Meanwhile, their claims to “know best” can act to divert funding away from the type of research initiatives that could improve the policy landscape. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor \& Francis Group.",

year = "2022",

month = feb,

day = "17",

doi = "10.1080/00934690.2021.1996979",

language = "English",

volume = "47",

pages = "117--130",

journal = "Journal of Field Archaeology",

issn = "0093-4690",

publisher = "Maney Publishing",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why There is Still an Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects and What We can do About It

AU - Brodie, N.

AU - Kersel, M.M.

AU - Mackenzie, S.

AU - Sabrine, I.

AU - Smith, E.

AU - Yates, D.

N1 - Funding Information: IGOs and INGOs are not exempt from this criticism. We have experienced what could be called claim-staking or territoriality among IGOs and INGOs that are ostensibly concerned with deciding or guiding policy but which appear to be more interested in protecting their own perceived mandates or attracting funding to support their ongoing activities. This is understandable, as we are all vying for financial support of our work. Certain IGOs and INGOs assert competence and authority in trade-related issues within the public and policy spheres, claiming that other stakeholder groups should accept their policy guidance or be excluded from the policy-making process. In our experience, the competence of an IGO or INGO reflects the competence of its individual officers, which sometimes is excellent but other times falls short. Some of these IGOs and INGOs seem to view other stakeholder groups more as competitors than as colleagues, sometimes siloing information from each other and from other stakeholders to the detriment of collaboration and innovation. Meanwhile, their claims to “know best” can act to divert funding away from the type of research initiatives that could improve the policy landscape. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

PY - 2022/2/17

Y1 - 2022/2/17

N2 - Fifty years after the adoption of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the illicit trade in cultural objects endures, with harmful consequences to local communities, knowledge acquisition, and archaeological landscapes and objects. In this article, we present a gap analysis to assess under-performing policy and practice. We argue that a poor understanding of how the trade is organized and operates and of how it might be regulated hinders effective policy formulation. Funding structures which encourage short-term ad hoc research and inhibit information sharing are in part responsible for some of the gaps. We conclude by suggesting how sustained theoretically informed, evidence-led collaborative analyses might help reduce or mitigate these problems, preventing another 50 years of illicit trade.

AB - Fifty years after the adoption of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the illicit trade in cultural objects endures, with harmful consequences to local communities, knowledge acquisition, and archaeological landscapes and objects. In this article, we present a gap analysis to assess under-performing policy and practice. We argue that a poor understanding of how the trade is organized and operates and of how it might be regulated hinders effective policy formulation. Funding structures which encourage short-term ad hoc research and inhibit information sharing are in part responsible for some of the gaps. We conclude by suggesting how sustained theoretically informed, evidence-led collaborative analyses might help reduce or mitigate these problems, preventing another 50 years of illicit trade.

KW - cultural policy

KW - antiquities trafficking

KW - heritage crime

KW - antiquities market

KW - ethics

KW - UNESCO

KW - ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

KW - CRIME

KW - TRAFFICKING

KW - RESPONSES

KW - POLICY

KW - SYRIA

U2 - 10.1080/00934690.2021.1996979

DO - 10.1080/00934690.2021.1996979

M3 - Article

SN - 0093-4690

VL - 47

SP - 117

EP - 130

JO - Journal of Field Archaeology

JF - Journal of Field Archaeology

IS - 2

ER -

Why There is Still an Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects and What We can do About It

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Projects

TRANSFORM: Trafficking Transformations: objects as agents in transnational criminal networks

Cite this