by Siorna McFarlane

"It belongs in a museum!" - Indiana Jones.

Partial extract from McFarlane, S (2005) eBay.co.uk: A New Era in Illicit Trade? Do Public Attitudes Match Archaeological Concerns, Unpublished MA dissertation from University College London.

 
Collecting has been described as a truly mass phenomenon in the twentieth century (Belk 1995: 53) and web sites like eBay have only increased its appeal into the twenty first century by emphasising the competitive nature implicit in collecting. All cultural items are owned in some respect, but it is the different motives behind collecting which provoke arguments (Howard 2003: 105). The contention against collecting revolves around claims of national heritage and identity by archaeologists and concerned enthusiasts; while concurrently collectors adhere to the relative principle that artefacts do not implicitly belong to anyone and every individual has a right to own them (Warren 1989: 2-3). These two concepts illustrate how public attitudes at times can conflict with archaeological concerns. 

 
Understanding Collectors.

There are many reasons given to explain the motivation behind collecting, from pleasure, to status or for self esteem (Belk 1995: 140). One means of understanding the passion with which collectors search out and buy artefacts, is to view the process as a constructive leisure activity (Belk 1995: 55). In a society that has lost touch with the product of its own labour, through mass production, control surfaces once more through choosing which artefacts to collect and amassing private collections (ibid). Collecting as a hobby is not only a process of consumption, but also for production, through the construction of meaning around objects and the created collections (ibid).

The selling of antiquities on websites such as eBay offers a unique experience to the world of collecting. Through the server, anyone from thirty three different countries with access to the internet, has the opportunity to view, bid and ultimately possess artefacts that in the past were viewed as commodities solely for the elite. The accessibility and vast price ranges for antiquities available on web sites like eBay, represents a ‘more democratic epoch in collecting’ (Lidington 2002: 67).

The history of elite collectors and museums is inextricably linked by the Cabinets of Curiosities, which later became the premise for many museums (Shelton 1997:180, 203). Today, museums are still viewed as imposing institutions, which inherently conjure up images of dusty store rooms, strict silence and elitism (Howard 2003: 232). Museum studies have demonstrated that there is still a class stigma attached to museum goers (Merriman 2000: 74) and although it is recognised that ‘museums must communicate or die’ (Hooper-Greenhill 1994: 34), there is still progress to be made to bring down the cultural barriers, so that everyone can enjoy the antiquities on display.

For the public in general, it is not enough to merely inherit cultural items, ‘people must realise that they are heirs to the past…free to decide for themselves what they are going to do…what it means to them now and what it may in the future’ (McGregor, quoted in Lowenthal 1998: 23). Selling antiquities on eBay enables people to make these types of judgement calls and claim cultural items for themselves, as members of a nation, or of humanity.

These ideas have been compounded in recent antiquities sales at Fortnum and Masons, the London department store, which auctioned off artefacts from around the globe without sufficient documentation on their method of discovery (Tubb 2002: 290). The brochure claimed that the items, such as Mesopotamian spearheads, were ‘surplus to the already overstretched museums’ and that, ‘everyone should have the opportunity to own a small piece of history’ (‘The Millennia Collections’, anon, quoted in Tubb 2002: 291). One eBay user, who had bought antiquities via the web site, reiterated this stance, advocating that there was no need for ‘every item found to end up in a shoe-box’ filing system…for academics to study…If a fully recorded piece subsequently ends up in the possession of someone who appreciates and cares for it….then well done eBay’ (Anon. E, pers.comm.).

These attitudes demonstrate the complexity of the problem with trading in antiquities. Markets, fairs and websites like eBay are not merely a place for illicit items to be sold, they also offer the public the chance to own a little piece of properly recorded history, which ultimately could act as a catalyst for life long appreciation of the past. The issue for archaeologists is that the illicit trade can take refuge hidden under the guise of surplus legal artefacts, which should have become public knowledge. These cultural items are not surplus museum artefacts and their erasure from an original context removes our present link with the physical and social past.

A less emotive perspective on the collection of artefacts is the recognition that although the archaeological concerns of provenance and context are lost through clandestine excavation, a new form of location and context, in terms of social history, is in progress by members of society choosing to eradicate their own link to the past. The activity occurring on sites like eBay is just as much a part of Britain’s history as the interpretation of objects to inform society on its ancestors. 

The Implications of Collecting.

The arguments against selling and buying antiquities surround the notion of cultural property as part of a national identity (Merriman, quoted in Brodie 2002: 8). British heritage, as a communal identity, open to us all (Lowenthal. 1998: 68), is especially threatened by the democratic access eBay provides to material without provenance. There are many forms of ‘identity’ (Howard. 2003: 150, see for example Young, R. 1990), but the theft of heritage through the destruction of the context and provenance of a site, has been identified as a means to eradicate a people through killing their history (Brinkman, quoted in Tubb 2002: 285).

The most unsettling thing for humans is ‘unknown unknowns’ (Rumsfeld, quoted in House of Commons, Hansard Debate. 2004). This is the realisation that potential knowledge is being stolen and destroyed, ‘the sense that we have mislaid something, can not remember where we put it and are not quite sure what we have lost’ (Johnson, quoted in House of Commons, Hansard Debate 2004). The idea of a cultural memory loss aroused in these sentiments (Crane 2000: 9-10), mirrors the idea that archaeology is a finite, non-renewable resource and needs to be protected at all costs (Holtorf 2001: 286, Warren.1989: 19). Buying and collecting material is arguably a method of protecting material that would otherwise fall into obscurity. However, demand only increases supplies and if collectors truly valued the past they would stop acquiring artefacts, even if they do feel they need a ‘good home’ (Renfrew 2000: 90). The continuation of this cycle adds weight to the claim that the ‘collectors are the real looters’ (Elia quoted in Renfrew 2000: 16), even if their intentions might be to protect already looted artefacts.

It is ironic that the main incentive behind illicit trade, as on eBay, is the desire to make money, when there is the potential for a greater monetary reward when a find is reported to an archaeologist. In such cases finders are eligible for the reward of a whole find and not just the treasure item initially discovered (The National Heritage Department 2002: 22). In the UK, it simply does not make financial sense for a person to sell a few pieces of treasure, accepting a lower price at auction than from museums, unless the finder is ignorant or illicitly selling vast amounts of artefacts. Perhaps if this situation was widely advertised, collectors who actively seek out artefacts would consider reporting finds.  

 
Aesthetics vs Intellectual Claims

A further disagreement between collectors and archaeologists centres on the perception of artefacts. Artefacts coveted solely for their aesthetic appeal and sold as a commodity, are viewed as shallow compared to the intellectual motives behind collecting (Samuel 1994: 266-7). A moment’s glance at any eBay’s description box demonstrates the fundamental aspect of aesthetic appeal and comodification at work on the site. Dealers have admitted that ‘aesthetic considerations weigh more heavily’ than any other motive when collecting and argue that this basic human love of beauty inspires archaeologists just as much as dealers (Ede 1995: 212). However, archaeologists assume ‘intellectual’ claims to collecting and justify these on the basis that museums do more that just store the objects. Objects can be likened to actors in a play, coming in and out of the museum’s stage to present something new each time (Crane 2000: 18), as a result, ‘collections and conserving our means to an end, which is communication with the museum users.’ (Pittman, quoted in Hooper-Greenhill 1996: 328). Archaeologists and museums are concerned with the interpretation behind the object, as opposed to the mindset of ‘is this sellable?’ (Belk 1995: 125). As the stewards and custodians of the past, archaeologists and museum workers ensure that future generations are given the same opportunity as those in the present, to understand history through the interpretation of tangible remains (Holtorf 2001: 286).

Current trends, reflected on eBay, suggest that the present generation desires access to artefacts, just as individuals crave access to sites such as Stonehenge, regardless to the damage this might cause (Lowenthal 1998: 27, Howard. 2003: 205). The belief that future generations will be grateful for professional archaeologists’ hard work might well be ill founded (Moore, quoted in Holtorf 2001: 289). 

The attitudes of collectors are juxtaposed to those of archaeologists. In principle these members of the public adhere to their right to claim artefacts of the past as a part of their identity and to create meaning from them. It seems unlikely that collectors will stop their hobby, or trade, on the principle of moral or ethical claims by archaeologists to preserve as much surrounding information as possible from a find for the benefit of an obscure future generation, or even for the nation’s identity in the shape of its own past.

References

Anon E. 2005. Response. Online questionnaire, further comments. In McFarlane, S (2005) eBay.co.uk: A New Era in Illicit Trade? Do Public Attitudes Match Archaeological Concerns, Unpublished MA dissertation from University College London.

 
Belk, R.W. 1995. Collecting in a Consumer Society. Routledge: London.

 
Brodie, N. 2002. Introduction. In (eds.) Brodie, N and Tubb, K.W. Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology. Routledge: London.1-23. 

 
Crane, S.A. 2000. Museums and Memory. Stanford University Press: California.

 
Department of National Heritage. Department of Culture Media and Sport. 2002. The Treasure Act 1996 (Revised). Code of Practice. (England and Wales). London.

 
Ede, J. 1995. ‘The Antiquities Trade: towards a more balanced view’. In (ed.) Tubb, K.W.  Antiquities: Trade or Betrayed. Legal, Ethical and Conservation Issues. Archetype Publications: London. 211- 215.

 
Holtorf, C.J. 2001. ‘Is the Past a non-Renewable Resource?’ In (eds.) Layton, R. Stone, P.G. and Thomas, J. Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge: London. 286-294.

 
Hooper-Greenhill. E. 1994. Museum and their Visitors. Routledge: London.

 
Hooper-Greenhill. E. 1996. ‘Education at the Heart of Museums’. In (ed.) Hooper-Greenhill. E. The Education Role of the Museum. Routledge: London. 324-336.

 
House of Commons, Hansard Debates. ‘Illicit Trade in Antiquities’. 2004 http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040526/halltext/40526h03.htm

 
Howard, P. 2003. Heritage, Management, Interpretation and Identity. Continuum Press: London.

 
Lowenthal, D. 1998. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

 
Lidington, H. 2002. ‘The Role of the Internet in Removing the Shackles of the Saleroom’. Public Archaeology. Vol. 2: 67-84.

 
Merriman, N. 2000. Beyond the Glass Case: The Past, the Heritage and the Public. University College London, Institute of Archaeology: London. 

 
Renfrew, C. 2000. Looting Legitimacy and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology. Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.: London.

 
Samuel, R. 1994. Theatres of Memory. Verso Press: London.

 
Shelton, A,A. 1997. ‘Cabinets of Transgression. Renaissance Collecting and the Incorporation of the New World’. In (eds.) Elsner, J. Cardinal, R. The Cultures of Collecting. Reakton Books Ltd: London. 177- 204.

 
Tubb, K.W. 2002. ‘Point, Counterpoint’. In (eds.) Brodie, N and Tubb, K.W. Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology. Routledge: London. 280-301.

 
Warren, K. 1989. ‘Introduction: A Philosophical Perspective on the Ethics and Resolution of Cultural Property Issues.’ In (ed.) Messenger, P. The Ethics of Collecting. Whose Culture? Whose Property? University of New Mexico Press. 1-27   

 
Young, R. 1990. White Mythologies: Writing History and the West. Routledge: London.

Return to Contents