AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

Looting and the World’sArchaeological Heritage:The Inadequate ResponseNeil Brodie and Colin Renfrew1McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge CB2 3ER,United Kingdom; email: njb1012@cam.ac.uk, des25@cam.ac.uk

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2005. 34:343–61

The Annual Review ofAnthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org

doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120551

Copyright c© 2005 byAnnual Reviews. All rightsreserved

0084-6570/05/1021-0343$20.00

Key Words

archaeology, antiquities, trade, museums

AbstractThe world’s archaeological heritage is under serious threat from il-legal and destructive excavations that aim to recover antiquities forsale on the international market. These antiquities are sold with-out provenance, so that their true nature is hard to discern, andmany are ultimately acquired by major museums in Europe andNorth America. The adoption in 1970 by UNESCO of the Con-vention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import,Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property created a newethical environment in which museums and their representative as-sociations adopted policies that were designed to guard against theacquisition of “unprovenanced,” and therefore most probably looted,antiquities. Unfortunately, over the past decade, U.S. museum as-sociations have been advocating a more relaxed disposition, and thebroader archaeological and anthropological communities are in sig-nificant measure responsible since they have met this unwelcomedevelopment largely in silence.

343

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

Contents

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344WORLDWIDE LOOTING

TODAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345LEGISLATION AND ITS

EFFECTIVENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347WHERE DOES THE

RESPONSIBILITY LIE? THEROLE OF MUSEUMS . . . . . . . . . . 348

THE LYDIAN TREASURE . . . . . . . . 349THE ETHICAL RESPONSE. . . . . . . 350

Repositories of Last Resort . . . . . . . 351THE 1970 RULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351THE IMPORTANCE OF

ACQUISITIONS POLICIES . . . . 353FROM STEINHARDT TO

SCHULTZ: MUSEUMRECIDIVISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

WHERE DOES THERESPONSIBILITY LIE? THEACADEMIC WORLD ANDTHE PUBLIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

INTRODUCTION

We in the academic community, and in par-ticular archaeologists and other serious stu-dents of the human past, are failing in ourresponsibility to conserve and to persuadeothers to conserve the world’s archaeologicalheritage. This heritage—that is to say, the ma-terial remains of past human activities—is be-ing destroyed at an undiminished pace. Partof that destruction is brought about by natu-ral agencies such as erosion and inundation.Part comes from agricultural activities, whichinvolve the reworking of the earth’s surface,or from mineral extraction, and part from ur-ban development including the constructionof buildings and of motorways. But distress-ingly a significant proportion of the ongoingdestruction is brought about by looters, actingfrom commercial motives, who are financedindirectly by private collectors of antiqui-ties. Moreover, these collectors sometimes

find their collecting activities tacitly encour-aged and even legitimized by some promi-nent museums, notably in Europe, in theUnited States and in Japan. This problem isby no means a new one, but it is one thathas grown more acute and also more clear-cut in recent decades. Although some majormuseums have put in place ethical acquisi-tion policies which prevent their acquiring re-cently looted artifacts, we argue here that inrecent years the academic and museum com-munities have been insufficiently active, andcertainly ineffective, in persuading more mu-seum directors and trustees of their duty notto permit the acquisition by museums of “un-provenanced” artifacts that are, in all prob-ability, looted. Indeed, we detect evidence ofretrograde movement on this issue by the ma-jor U.S. museum associations. Unless leadingmuseums, who are widely seen as the keepersof the public conscience in this area, can bepersuaded to adopt more exacting standardsand to end their cozy and acquiescent rela-tionships with private collectors, it is likelythat the looting will continue undiminished.

Already in 1970 the matter had be-come one of such international concern thatUNESCO adopted its Convention on theMeans of Prohibiting and Preventing the Il-licit Import, Export and Transfer of Owner-ship of Cultural Property, and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum formulated a pio-neering declaration stating that it would ac-quire “no more art objects or antiquities forthe Museum unless the objects are accompa-nied by a pedigree” (Biddle 1980). In view ofthese two important statements, the year 1970has come to be regarded as something of awatershed insofar as “unprovenanced” antiq-uities are concerned, and academic and mu-seum treatments of such material that wereunquestioned in the years before 1970 are nowoften frowned upon. Moralities have evolved(Renfrew 2000, pp. 77–80). Yet although sincethen some legislative provisions have beenestablished, both nationally and internation-ally, to restrict the traffic in “unprovenanced”antiquities, and ethical guidelines have been

344 Brodie · Renfrew

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

made available to guide museum acquisitions,there are still many museums and private col-lectors who, by their failure to exercise duediligence [for instance by applying the “1970Rule” (see below)], continue to give indirectsupport to the looting process. Despite clearcalls from many archaeologists, anthropolo-gists, and museum curators and directors—and the clear positions adopted and energet-ically advocated, for instance by the AIA, theSAA, and ICOM, which will be noted below—most museums continue to lack clear andtransparent ethical acquisition policies. Somemuseums continue to purchase or to acceptloans or gifts of artifacts whose origin and his-tory has not been clearly established. And yetthey manage to do so without the widespreadpublic condemnation and apparently with-out the evident concern among their trusteeswhich might be expected, and which may bethe only way of putting an end to such traffick-ing, and of reducing the looting upon whichit feeds. Although nearly all museums pro-claim that they will not acquire cultural ma-terial emerging from Iraq in the aftermath ofthe war, we predict that, within a few years,some museums will do just that, either claim-ing ignorance of the origins of the objects,or perhaps even claiming that they are sav-ing the cultural heritage of humankind. Somemuseums have already acquired materialfrom Afghanistan.

Recently, the focus on the destruction ofthe archaeological record through looting,and the role of museums in acquiescing tothe flow of “unprovenanced” antiquities, hasbeen obscured by the arguments concerningthe repatriation of antiquities which were re-moved long ago, well before the 1970 water-shed. This might be described as the “Sec-ondary Elgin Marbles Syndrome,” where inresisting claims for restitution of cultural ob-jects long established in their collections, suchmuseums manage to turn a blind eye to the on-going looting today and to the need for rigorin ensuring that new acquisitions have notbeen recently looted. Thus although the Dec-laration on the Importance and Value of Universal

AIA: theArchaeologicalInstitute of America

SAA: the Society forAmericanArchaeology

ICOM:InternationalCouncil of Museums

ACCP: theAmerican Councilfor Cultural Policy

AAMD: theAssociation of ArtMuseum Directors

Museums, proclaimed in December 2002 by18 major museums (Lewis 2004), decries theillegal trade in cultural objects, it makes noclear statement about how it might be abatedby due diligence in continuing museum acqui-sition. It seems ironic that the ethical debatecurrently focuses on the issue of restitutionof antiquities looted decades ago, where thecontextual damage and associated loss of in-formation is long since accomplished, whereasit largely ignores the much more urgent issueof ongoing looting and the continuing loss ofinformation about the past.

It is disquieting also that the Presi-dent of a new organization, the ACCP,Ashton Hawkins, a former legal counsel to theMetropolitan Museum of Art in New York,despite offering general words of support forthe 1970 UNESCO Convention, has arguedfor the relaxation rather the enforcement ofcontrol in the acquisition of “unprovenanced”artifacts by collectors and museums in theU.S. (D’Arcy 2002). The AAMD (2004) Re-port of the AAMD Task Force on the Acqui-sition of Archaeological Materials and AncientArt is disturbing too in advocating acquisitionguidelines that are less stringent than thoseadopted by the University of PennsylvaniaMuseum 34 years earlier.

We first review the scale of the ongoinglooting. We then describe the legislative andethical responses that followed in the trainof the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Next weconsider where the responsibilities lie for thecurrent crisis. Finally, we conclude that un-less the world of scholarship in general gets itsact together and works to influence museumsand hence collectors, the long-term hopes oflearning more about the human past from thearchaeological record look bleak indeed.

WORLDWIDE LOOTING TODAY

Information about the commercial trade inarchaeological heritage and its deleteriousconsequences for our understanding of pastsocieties, not to mention the outright theft,vandalism, and destruction of private and

www.annualreviews.org • Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage 345

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

IARC: IllicitAntiquities ResearchCentre

SAFE: SavingAntiquities forEveryone

SPACH: Society forthe Preservation ofAfghanistan’sCultural Heritage

public property that it entails, has been gath-ered in a large number of papers and authoredand edited books (see for example Atwood2004, Brodie et al. 2000, Brodie & Doole2004, Coggins 1969, Gill & Chippindale1993, Graepler 1993, Kirkpatrick 1992,Meyer 1973, O’Keefe 1997, Renfrew 2000,Schick 1998, Stead 1998, Toner 2002,Watson 1997; and papers in Brodie et al.2001, Brodie & Tubb 2002, Heilmeyer &Eule 2004, Leyten 1995, Messenger 1999,Schmidt & McIntosh 1996, Tubb 1995).Archaeology magazine has published manywell-illustrated articles on the subject, manyof which were reprinted in Vitelli (1996).More information is also available in the“Antiquities Market” section of the Journalof Field Archaeology, which ran from 1974to 1993 and has recently been revived,and in Culture Without Context, the bian-nual newsletter of Cambridge University’sIARC. Many other papers are available inthe literature and some will be mentionedbelow. Web resources include David Gilland Christopher Chippindale’s “Loot-ing Matters!” at Swansea University (http://www.swan.ac.uk/classics/staff/dg/looting/),IARC (http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/IARC/home.htm), SAFE (http://www.savingantiquities.org/index.htm), HeritageWatch in Cambodia (http://www.heritagewatch.org/over.htm), and SPACH(http://spach.info/). Finally, special mentionshould be made of the work of ICOM(http://icom.museum/). ICOM has actedfor the international museums’ communityin developing an ethical disposition towardsthe antiquities market, and highlighted theassociated cultural destruction with theirseries of “100 Missing Objects” publications,and their “Red Lists.”

Some quantitative information about thedestruction of archaeological sites and mon-uments “on the ground” has been providedby archaeological surveys of regions and in-dividual sites. In 1983, one study showed that58.6% of all Mayan sites in Belize had beendamaged by looters (Gutchen 1983). Between

1989 and 1991 a regional survey in Mali dis-covered 830 archaeological sites, but 45% hadalready been damaged, 17% badly. In 1996 asample of 80 were revisited and the incidenceof looting had increased by 20% (Bedaux &Rowlands 2001, p. 872). A survey in a districtof northern Pakistan showed that nearly halfthe Buddhist shrines, stupas and monasterieshad been badly damaged or destroyed by ille-gal excavations (Ali & Coningham 1998). InAndalusia, Spain, 14% of known archaeolog-ical sites have been damaged by illicit exca-vation (Fernandez Cacho & Sanjuan 2000).Between 1940 and 1968, it is estimated thatsomething like 100,000 holes were dug intothe Peruvian site of Batan Grande, and thatin 1965 the looting of a single tomb producedsomething like 40 kg of gold jewelry, whichaccounts for about 90% of the Peruvian goldnow found in collections around the world(Alva 2001, p. 91).

The continuing destruction of Iraq’s ar-chaeological heritage is particularly well-documented. Between the end of the GulfWar in 1991 and 1994, 11 regional mu-seums were broken into and approximately3000 artifacts and 484 manuscripts werestolen, of which only 54 have been recovered(Symposium 1994). Assyrian palaces in northIraq were also targeted. Pieces of at least14 relief slabs from Sennacherib’s palace atNineveh were discovered on the market, andbas-reliefs from the palaces of AshurnasirpalII and Tiglathpileser III were stolen from thestoreroom at Nimrud (Russell 1997). Then,following the outbreak of the most recent hos-tilities, in April 2003, the National Museumin Bagdhad (along with several libraries) wasransacked. The official U.S. investigation re-ported that at least 13,515 objects had beenstolen from the museum (Bogdanos 2003),of which by June 2004 something like 4000had been recovered. Since then, archaeolog-ical looting has become endemic throughoutsouth Iraq. Surveys were carried out by theNational Geographic in May 2003 (Wrightet al. 2003) and UNESCO in June 2003,which discovered that many sites had been

346 Brodie · Renfrew

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

badly damaged. It was estimated, for example,that 30–50% of Isin had been destroyedby illicit digging (UNESCO 2003, 8). Thedestruction in Iraq has been paralleled inAfghanistan, and for much the same rea-sons (Feroozi & Tarzi 2004). Despite theTaliban’s high profile demolition of theBamiyan Buddhas for “religious” purposes,most of the destruction in Afghanistan hasbeen wrought by the search for saleable an-tiquities and manuscripts, and has continuedif not actually worsened since the Taliban’s re-moval from power.

Some information about the material scaleof the illegal trade is forthcoming from officialpolice statistics. In Turkey for example, be-tween 1993 and 1995 there were over 17,500official police investigations into stolen antiq-uities (Kaye 1995). Greek police reported thatbetween 1987 and 2001 they recovered 23,007artifacts (Doole 2001, p. 19). From 1969 to1999 the Italian Carabinieri seized 326,000artifacts from illegal excavations, of whichnearly 100,000 were recovered between 1994and 1999 (Pastore 2001, p. 159). In one year,1997, German police in Munich recovered50–60 crates containing 139 icons, 61 fres-coes, and 4 mosaics that had been torn fromthe walls of north Cypriot churches; Swisspolice seized something like 10,000 antiqui-ties from four warehouses in Geneva Freeportthat belonged to an Italian antiquities dealer(Watson 1998, p. 11); and Italian police ar-rested a dealer who was found to be in illegalpossession of between 10,000–30,000 antiqui-ties (Doole 1999, p. 11). And in global terms,1997 was not an unusually bad year.

Although the statistics quoted above haveestablished beyond doubt that archaeologicalsites and monuments are being deliberatelystripped of artifacts and sculpture, companionstudies of exhibition and sales catalogues haveshown that upwards of 70% of archaeologi-cal objects that come onto the market or thatare contained in recently assembled collec-tions are without any indication of provenance(Chippindale & Gill 2000, Elia 2001, Gilgan2001, Nørskov 2002). The clear implication

CCPIA:Convention onCultural PropertyImplementation Act

is that they have only recently entered circu-lation and are probably stolen, looted, or fake.

Auction houses and dealers object to theautomatic equation that archaeologists areprone to make between “unprovenanced” andlooted antiquities, and point out that prove-nances are often not revealed because of a ven-dor’s request for confidentiality, or because ofthe commercial requirement to keep a sourcesecret. Nevertheless, although there is sometruth to these claims, it is hardly likely thatcommercial or personal reasons can accountfor all the missing provenances that have beenrecorded by the aforementioned studies.

LEGISLATION AND ITSEFFECTIVENESS

Many nations have legislation which pro-tects their own cultural heritage, sometimesdetermining that all ancient cultural ob-jects discovered within their boundaries be-long to the state, and making it an offenseto export antiquities without a government-approved permit. Other nations, such as theUnited Kingdom or the United States, do notprotect their indigenous antiquities in such asweeping way, although they do have somelegislative protection. The recent convic-tions of Tokely-Parry in the United Kingdomand Schultz in the United States, which wediscuss below, have confirmed that it is acriminal offense under those countries’ re-spective stolen property laws to trade in an-tiquities that are known to be stolen pub-lic property. But very few nations currentlyhave specific legislation which effectively pro-tects the antiquities of other countries, andwhich makes it an offense to import antiqui-ties that have been illegally excavated within,or illegally exported from, their country oforigin. Such might well be the implied re-sponsibility underlying the 1970 UNESCOConvention, but its ratification by a na-tion does not in itself introduce a new legalframework.

The United States’ CCPIA of 1983 offereda very constructive response to the problem.

www.annualreviews.org • Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage 347

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

It implements the 1970 UNESCO Con-vention with respect to the United Statesby establishing the possibility of bilateralagreements with individual states to restrictthe importation into the United States ofspecified classes of archaeological and ethno-graphic artifacts from those states. Thereare currently agreements with Cyprus, Italy,Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,Nicaragua, Peru, Mali and Cambodia.

After its very late accession in 2002to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, theUnited Kingdom did in 2003 take the signif-icant step of enacting the Dealing in CulturalObjects (Offences) Act. This now makes it acriminal offense knowingly to deal in taintedcultural objects. An antiquity or other culturalobject is defined as “tainted” if it has been ille-gally excavated or removed from an archaeo-logical site anywhere in the world after the Actcame into force. This for the first time makesit a specific offense under British law to deal(knowingly) in illicit antiquities of overseasorigin.

In Europe more generally there have beenencouraging moves by other laggard coun-tries, like the United Kingdom, to ratify the1970 UNESCO Convention. In view of itsrole as a market place, the ratification bySwitzerland is of considerable significance.Denmark and Sweden have also now rati-fied, and it is believed that Germany, Belgium,Holland, and perhaps Norway are in theprocess of ratification. That certainly repre-sents progress, although without supplemen-tary legislation in each country (as exemplifiedby Switzerland’s passage of the Federal Act onthe International Transfer of Cultural Prop-erty in 2003), the move is of more symbolicthan practical consequence.

The recent conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq,and the former Yugoslavia have taken a heavytoll on archaeological and other cultural her-itage, and have drawn attention back towardthe protection that might be offered duringwartime by the Hague Convention, and par-ticularly its 1954 First Protocol and 1999 Sec-ond Protocol. Unfortunately, at the present

time, neither the United States nor theUnited Kingdom has ratified this convention,although in May 2004 the United KingdomGovernment announced its intention to do so.

There are two further international con-ventions that offer protection to movablecultural heritage, although as neither hasbeen ratified by the United States or Britain,we shall mention them only in passing.The first is the 1995 UNIDROIT Con-vention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cul-tural Objects, which rectifies a perceivedweakness of the 1970 UNESCO Conven-tion by harmonizing the different stolenproperty laws of civil code and commonlaw countries. The 2001 UNESCO Conven-tion on the Protection of the Underwater Cul-tural Heritage extends protection to culturalheritage on the international seabed.

WHERE DOES THERESPONSIBILITY LIE? THEROLE OF MUSEUMS

We have consistently sought to argue thatalthough the acts of looting take place in re-mote places, and often in developing coun-tries, the responsibility for those acts lies, atleast in part, elsewhere. The incentive for thelooting derives from the market, from the cir-cumstance that the looted objects can be soldfor significant profit. It has, however, beenwell documented (Brodie 1998) that it is notthe looters themselves who reap the full finan-cial benefit of their activities. The price of theobjects in question increase as they move upthe chain: from regional dealers to metropoli-tan dealers in the country of origin, to dealerstrading clandestinely in international centers,to dealers and auction houses trading openlywhen the objects have changed hands suffi-ciently often that their illicit origin can nolonger be firmly documented. It is there thatthe public international price is established.And it is there that the high sale value is de-termined which is such a powerful incentiveto ongoing looting back at the beginning ofthe chain.

348 Brodie · Renfrew

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

Dealers, private collectors and the majorityof museums are in general willing to proclaimthat they will never purchase antiquities orother cultural property knowing the mate-rial in question to have been stolen [thoughin practice this principle may be ignored, asthe case of the Lydian Treasure (see below)revealingly illustrates]. But it is all too easyfor a collector or curator to state that he orshe did not realize that an “unprovenanced”object was in fact looted, and very difficultactually to establish the contrary. It is thecontinuing indiscriminate acquisition of “un-provenanced” antiquities by private collectorsand by museums that lies at the root of thelooting problem. As museums are often therecipient of private collections, by gift, be-quest, or purchase, it is there that the ultimateresponsibility lies.

From the standpoint of the archaeologistor anthropologist, it is not simply the arti-facts themselves that are important, but theinformation which their study and publica-tion can offer when taken into considera-tion along with the detailed circumstancesof their discovery. By rewarding the lootersthrough the acquisition of “unprovenanced”material, museums are directly subscribing tothe ongoing process of clandestine excavationand hence to the destruction of the contex-tual information which is the central compo-nent of the world’s archaeological heritage.By allowing the acquisition of such material,museum directors and trustees are betray-ing the principle that archaeological heritageshould not be destroyed, and, as Gerstenblith(2003a) has recently suggested, they are alsofailing in their duty to the institutions theyserve.

THE LYDIAN TREASURE

The case of the Lydian Treasure is a reveal-ing one because it is a rare instance of anational government (that of Turkey) actuallygoing to a court of law in a foreign country(the United States) in order to recover pos-session of a major collection of antiquities (the

so-called “Lydian Treasure”) which had beencovertly acquired by one of the world’s greatmuseums (the Metropolitan Museum of Art).The Metropolitan steadfastly refused to re-turn it, although the discovery process in thecourt proceedings revealed that the museumdid indeed have knowledge of the real prove-nance of the entire looted hoard.

The story of the Lydian Treasure is wellknown (Kaye & Main 1995), but is worth cit-ing here because it is of pivotal relevance toour theme and because it has apparently notyet led to any public decision by the Trusteesof the Metropolitan Museum of Art to for-mulate and announce an ethical policy on ac-quisitions comparable to that adopted by theUniversity of Pennsylvania Museum in 1978(Biddle 1980), or to incorporate the 1970 Rule(see below) into such a policy.

The facts seem clear. In the mid-1960s tu-muli in the Usak region of western Turkeywere broken into and looted by villagers.Some of the finds, including more than 360objects of silver and gold from the sixthcentury BC, were acquired between 1966and 1970 by the Metropolitan Museum. TheMuseum’s own documents, which it wasforced to disclose in the court case in 1987,revealed that its curators did in fact knowwhere the finds had come from, although theywere not put on permanent display until 1984under the deliberately misleading caption ofthe “East Greek Treasure.” The Republic ofTurkey took action in the New York court in1987, whereupon the Museum tried to havethe case dismissed under the statute of lim-itations. The motion to dismiss was deniedby the court on the grounds that the Mu-seum should have exercised due diligence atthe time of acquisition. This then allowed theparties to the case to undertake the pretrialdiscovery process, and thus to request andthen examine the documents maintained inthe files of the other party. As Kaye and Main(1995, p. 153) recount,

[T]he documents produced by theMetropolitan included minutes of meetings

www.annualreviews.org • Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage 349

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

AAM: the AmericanAssociation ofMuseums

of the acquisitions committee of its Boardof Trustees at which the purchases ofthe objects were approved, and purchaserecommendation forms submitted by theDepartment of Greek and Roman Art tothe acquisitions committee describing theartifacts.

When this evidence was revealed, the Mu-seum settled the case out of court, and theartifacts in question were returned to Turkey.

The Lydian Treasure case is particularlysignificant in showing that in some cases theallegedly “unprovenanced” antiquities can in-deed come with sufficient information thattheir place of discovery, and therefore the de-structive and illegal nature of their “excava-tion,” is actually known to the purchaser, al-though of course never acknowledged. To thecommitted archaeologist, that appears as theextreme of corruption—that a museum of-ficial should purchase “unprovenanced” an-tiquities while actually having to hand in-formation documenting the circumstances oftheir looting. We find it a troubling ques-tion why the museum officials concerned, in-cluding the Director, who knowingly acquiredsuch looted material, were not dismissed whentheir conduct was brought to light, and whythe Board of Trustees of the day, if they wereaware at the time of the circumstances ofthe acquisition, did not resign in shame atso manifest a dereliction of their public dutywhen their complicity, if such it had been, wasrevealed in the New York court.

THE ETHICAL RESPONSE

The 1970 UNESCO Convention promptedmuseums and their representative associationsto examine their ethical obligations, particu-larly as regards the acquisition of cultural ob-jects, and since then codes of practice havebeen developed that ensure a correct ethi-cal disposition. The critical feature of thesecodes, as they relate to the antiquities marketat least, is that every museum should formu-late a written acquisitions policy. For example,

article 2.1 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Mu-seums (2004), the professional body to whichmost of the world’s major museums belong,clearly states: “2.1 Collections Policy. The gov-erning body for each museum should adoptand publish a written collections policy thataddresses the acquisition, care and use ofcollections.”

The AAM 1993 Code of Ethics is lessspecific, but asks that each member museumshould prepare its own institutional code,elaborating certain practices, which would,we presume, include an acquisitions policy.This recommendation was necessary. Whenthe J. Paul Getty Museum began developingits own acquisitions policy in 1986, it foundthat “such a policy did not really exist in anyone of the major collecting institutions inAmerica” (True 1997, p. 139). Unfortunately,we have seen nothing to persuade us thatthe situation has significantly improved sincethen, despite the advice of ICOM and theAAM.

The problem in practice is that potentialacquisitions, even if recently looted, rarelycarry with them evidence of that looting.This inevitably implies that any artifact lack-ing a well-documented provenance may wellbe the product of illicit excavation and of il-legal export from its country of origin. Atfirst sight the appropriate response wouldbe to avoid acquiring any antiquity what-ever whose provenance could not be fullydocumented. That is indeed implied by Ar-ticle 2.3 of the ICOM Code of Ethics forMuseums:

2.3. Provenance and Due Diligence. Every ef-fort must be made before acquisition to en-sure that any object or specimen offered forpurchase, gift, loan, bequest or exchange hasnot been illegally obtained in or exportedfrom, its country of origin or any interme-diate country in which it might have beenowned legally (including the museum’s owncountry). Due diligence in this regard shouldestablish the full history of the item from dis-covery or production.

350 Brodie · Renfrew

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

But the ICOM Code of Ethics goes beyondensuring the legitimacy of a potential acqui-sition. It recognizes the damage that lootingcauses to archaeological heritage when it asksthat:

2.4. Objects and Specimens from Unauthorisedof Unscientific Fieldwork. Museums shouldnot acquire objects where there is reason-able cause to believe their recovery involvedthe unauthorised, unscientific, or intentionaldestruction or damage of monuments, ar-chaeological or geological sites . . .

The AAM’s equivalent stipulation isweaker:

[the museum ensures that] Acquisition, dis-posal and loan activities are conducted ina manner that respects the protection andpreservation of natural and cultural re-sources and discourages illicit trade in suchmaterials.

This requirement is open to a broad rangeof implementations, which makes it neces-sary for member museums to codify their ownpolicies in this area, as the AAM recommends.Not all museums have done so.

Repositories of Last Resort

For a national or a regional museum there isone other important exception which needs tobe specified. For when antiquities which havebeen excavated illicitly and in contravention ofthe law within the country in question cometo light, it is clear that they must be curatedsomewhere, in what has come to be called a“repository of last resort.” This point is wellmade in Paragraph 2.11 of the ICOM Code ofEthics for Museums:

2.11. Repositories of Last Resort. Nothing inthis Code of Ethics should prevent a museumfrom acting as an authorised repository forunprovenanced, illicitly collected or recov-

CAA: the CollegeArt Association ofAmerica

AAA: the AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation

ered specimens and objects from the terri-tory over which it has lawful responsibility.

The central point here is that the artifactsin question should originate from the territoryin which the museum is located and which itserves: there is nothing here which sanctionsthe acquisition of unprovenanced antiquitiesoriginating from outside the museum’s ownregional or national territory.

THE 1970 RULE

In 1971 the Harvard University Art Museumsformulated an acquisitions policy that intro-duced the idea of a date threshold. As regardsa possible acquisition, the policy states that“. . .the Curator should have reasonable assur-ance under the circumstances that the objectwas not exported after July 1, 1971, in viola-tion of the laws of the country of origin and/orthe country where it was legally owned”(AIA 2000, p. 129 n.42).

Harvard’s introduction of the 1971 datethreshold was significant. It recognized that,in practice, nearly every museum in the worldis willing to acquire antiquities which wereunearthed long ago, for instance in the nine-teenth century, however dubious the circum-stances of their discovery at the time. It isgenerally accepted that objects from old col-lections of antiquities are freely traded and ac-quired and that to refrain from acquiring themnow would do nothing to diminish the flow ofmore recently looted material.

Then, in 1973, the AIA joined with theAAM, the U.S. Committee of ICOM, theCAA, the AAMD, and the AAA to adopta resolution asking that museums shouldrefuse to acquire through purchase, gift,or bequest any object exported in viola-tion of the laws of a country of origin,and urging adherence to principles con-tained within the UNESCO Convention(AIA 2000, pp. 106–7, 122). The AIA at firstimposed a date threshold of December 30,1973, the date of the resolution, but subse-quently changed it to December 30, 1970, the

www.annualreviews.org • Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage 351

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

date of an earlier resolution. Article 2 of thecurrent AIA Code of Ethics reads,

[Members should r]efuse to participate inthe trade of undocumented antiquities andrefrain from activities that enhance thecommercial value of such objects. Undoc-umented antiquities are those which arenot documented as belonging to a publicor private collection before December 30,1970. . .or which have not been excavatedand exported from the country of origin inaccordance with the laws of that country.

The inclusion in an acquisition code of thestrict (because enforceable) requirement thatthey will not in principle acquire antiquitieswhich lack a clear and documented historyback to 1970 denies museums the opportu-nity of acquiring antiquities which have beenillicitly excavated after that date, and preventsthem acquiring antiquities that are the prod-uct of recent looting, but does not stop themfrom acquiring antiquities that were in cir-culation before that date. This “1970 Rule”seems an effective and practical response toan ethical problem, and one that is capableof rigorous enforcement. It was adopted bythe British Museum in 1998 in its statementon the acquisition of antiquities, and is nowenshrined within its Policy on Acquisitions(as revised in March 2004), where paragraph4.2.5 states,

Wherever possible the Trustees will only ac-quire those objects that have documentationto show that they were exported from theircountry of origin before 1970 and this policywill apply to all objects of major importance.

This is a crucial provision in practice be-cause it sets out a rule that can be enforcedstrictly (although the British Museum’s pol-icy explicitly excludes minor antiquities fromthis strict provision, without explaining howthe archaeological significance of an unprove-nanced piece can realistically be assessed).

Thus the 1970 Rule is an important onebecause it establishes a standard which is quite

possible for a museum to follow in practice,and which can be strictly applied. In Britainthe Museums Association has now adoptedthe 1970 Rule as a general policy, and it isapplied also by the National Art CollectionsFund, which helps to fund museum acquisi-tions, as one of its standard criteria for sup-port. It should be understood that the Ruleis only a pragmatic guideline, in that it offersprotection but does not guarantee immunityagainst legal action by a dispossessed owner.Nevertheless, we regard it as a key principleprecisely because it is one which is enforce-able, and which therefore does lead museumswith an ethical acquisitions code to declineto buy, or even to receive by gift or bequest,any material which is or may be tainted. Italso prevents museums from accepting giftsof such material from private collectors, andtherefore prevents private collectors from ob-taining tax relief or other marks of recognitionfor donations or bequests of such tainted ma-terials. It therefore has the status of a bench-mark, and one that is likely to be contestedvigorously in the future.

There are signs that such contestation is al-ready taking place, and signs too of slippage.There have been suggestions that a more suit-able date threshold would be 1983, the dateof U.S. ratification of the UNESCO Con-vention. The J. Paul Getty Museum has an-nounced that it will not acquire material thathad not been documented prior to 1995 (True1997, p. 139). The recently established ACCPclaims to support the principles underlyingthe 1970 UNESCO Convention, but doesnot openly endorse the 1970 Rule, or anyother date threshold. Worse still, in 2004,the AAMD suggested that although museumsshould not acquire any object from an offi-cial archaeological excavation and known tohave been removed illegally from its countyof origin after 1970, it would be permissiblefor them to acquire an unprovenanced objectof unknown origin (i.e., most probably alooted object) provided that it can be docu-mented to have been outside its country oforigin for at least ten years (AAMD 2004, p. 4).

352 Brodie · Renfrew

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

This rolling “ten year rule,” whereby muse-ums would be able to acquire antiquities whichhave a documented history extending back notto 1970 but simply to a date ten years beforethe time in question (i.e., currently back to1995), in our view amounts effectively to alooters’ charter. It would be necessary only forlooted antiquities clandestinely to enter a pri-vate collection, to be documented, and thento wait there for ten years until the time limiton any possible claim for restitution has ex-pired, in order to be available for acquisitionby a museum.

Even when museums have announcedtheir adherence to a date threshold, therehave been accusations of backsliding. In 1995Harvard’s Arthur M. Sackler Museum bought182 Greek vase fragments of uncertain prove-nance, despite its strong acquisitions policy of1971 (Robinson & Yemma 1998). Why hasthe academic community at Harvard not takensteps to ensure that the Harvard Art Muse-ums adhere to their policy? In 1998, the BostonGlobe revealed that although the Boston Mu-seum of Fine Art had adopted an acquisitionspolicy in 1983, it had nevertheless between1984 and 1987 purchased 73 classical Greekand Roman antiquities, of which only ten hadany clear provenance (Robinson 1998a).

THE IMPORTANCE OFACQUISITIONS POLICIES

It must—one hopes—be unusual for curatorsor trustees actually to have before them docu-mentary evidence indicative of looting at thetime of purchase of the apparently “unprove-nanced” antiquities. That is a special featurewhich gives particular and deserved notorietyto the Lydian Treasure case.

More often, when the acquisition ofunprovenanced antiquities is contemplated,there is simply no direct evidence of the spe-cific find circumstances of the objects in ques-tion, which have been deprived of all contextby the long sequence of transactions in the“antiquity transfer chain” mentioned above.Indeed it is one of the functions of such an an-

tiquity transfer chain that specific knowledgeof the circumstances of discovery should in-deed be securely lost. For if they were not lost,good title could be contested (as in the caseconcerning the Lydian Treasure) and restitu-tion might be demanded. The deliberate lossof information is an integral and deliberatepart of the illicit market in “unprovenanced”antiquities.

Many other cases can be cited of impor-tant groups of material, or of significant indi-vidual pieces, where archaeological materialswhose looted status can be securely assertedor at least plausibly suspected have come topublic attention. Prominent amongst themin recent years would be the Sevso Silver(Renfrew 2000, pp. 46–51), the KanakariaMosaics (Gerstenblith 1995), the AidoniaTreasure (Howland 1997), the Steinhardtphiale (see below), the Lydian Treasure, theBoston Herakles (Rose & Acar 1995), theGetty kouros (notable as probably a fake an-tiquity: Kokkou 1993), the Cleveland Apollo(Litt 2004), and the Euphronios vase (Meyer1973, pp. 86–100). Such a list can easily becompiled even before one goes on to look atsome of the private collections which havebeen publicly exhibited and which containmany “unprovenanced” antiquities of whicha number are probably the product of recentlooting. Prominent among these are the col-lections of George Ortiz (Ortiz 1996), LeonLevy and Shelby White (von Bothmer 1990),the Alsdorfs (Pal 1997), and the Fleischmans,now in the J. Paul Getty Museum (True &Hamma 1994). The museums which have ex-hibited these dubious materials bear a heavyresponsibility, for exhibition in a prominentmuseum in effect launders a tainted antiquity,by implication establishing, or at least goingsome way to establish, both its authenticityand its respectability.

Recently, attention has been drawn to thepractice of some collectors and some mu-seums of arranging that recently purchasedand hitherto unknown and unpublishedantiquities—whose status as looted must al-ways be suspected, even if it can rarely be

www.annualreviews.org • Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage 353

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

definitively proved—should first be publiclyexhibited in a well-known museum, along-side the museum’s own well-established col-lection (Renfrew 2004). The collector gainsin this way because when he or she goes onto exhibit this hitherto entirely unrecordedand “unprovenanced” piece in a display of thepersonal collection, its entire lack of recordedhistory can be covered by citing its display inthe museum in question, often with referenceto publication in the museum’s catalogue ofits exhibition. So the collector profits fromthis laundering process, in that the newly-acquired “unprovenanced” antiquity gains re-spectability and acceptance through its displayin a well-known collection. The museum’sbenefits are less immediately obvious, for witha skeptical and well-informed viewing pub-lic, its lack of an ethical acquisition and dis-play policy would be openly exposed. Butwith the present culture of acceptance, muse-ums often avoid censure, although the BostonMuseum of Fine Arts (Robinson 1998a), theJ. Paul Getty Museum (Kaufman 1996), theLouvre (Henley 2000), and the Metropoli-tan Museum have been publicly criticized fortheir dubious and very questionable ethicalpositions.

But in some cases the benefits to the mu-seum appear to them very real. Collectorsshow their gratitude to the museum for ex-hibiting, and in effect laundering, their col-lection of “unprovenanced” antiquities in anumber of ways. First, they often donate someor all of the antiquities (not infrequently themost obviously looted ones) to the museums,thereby often obtaining substantial tax bene-fits from the tax authorities by virtue of their“charitable” donation. (The specialist cura-tors of the museums should not supply val-uations in such cases, but former director ofthe Metropolitan Museum, Thomas Hoving(1996, pp. 287–88), records that during the1970s and 1980s the now fired curator of theJ. Paul Getty Museum, Jiri Frel, was respon-sible for collectors receiving benefits in excessof what they had themselves paid to acquirethe object in question). Second, the collectors

who have benefited from this laundering pro-cess sometimes pay substantial sums towardsnew museum galleries, which are in somecases named in their honor. And third, thecollector in question is sometimes rewardedby being made a trustee of the museum inquestion, a position which is sometimes heldto confer a significant honorific status. Thatthere may be an inherent conflict of inter-est is rarely suggested, and the cozy collu-sion between collector and curator generallyoverlooked.

It might seem invidious to put all the blamefor this situation on the shoulders of museumcurators and directors, but they should, astrained professionals, see the requirements ofa decent ethical position more clearly thanthe private collector. It is these profession-als who give the lead, and all too many ofthem have not yet recognized that the moral-ity of the nineteenth century with its pol-icy of unrestricted acquisitions has long sincebeen superseded. But it is this failure to re-alize that times have changed, and that co-herent ethical codes for acquisition are nowneeded, that makes so distasteful the appear-ance on the 2002 Declaration on the Importanceand Value of Universal Museums of the signa-tures of the directors of institutions, includ-ing the Art Institute of Chicago, the Cleve-land Museum of Art, the Louvre Museum,the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and theMuseum of Fine Arts, Boston. Each of thesehas been publicly criticized (see the sourcescited above) for the failure to exercise duediligence and apply a proper ethical code inrelation to dubious acquisitions. Indeed wewonder whether the three museums on thelist of signatories which do collect antiqui-ties (unlike some which focus exclusively onpaintings or contemporary art) and which doindeed have publicly stated acquisition poli-cies, namely the State Museums, Berlin (Eule2004), the British Museum, and, though notadhering to the 1970 Rule, the J. Paul GettyMuseum, are wise to associate themselves inpolemical declarations in such ethically ques-tionable company. The 2002 Declaration has

354 Brodie · Renfrew

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

been criticized in a number of quarters forits stand on restitution (Lewis 2004, O’Neill2004). But despite the apparent consensus onthe issue of restitution, the museum world ac-tually stands divided on the much more urgenttheme of current acquisition—urgent becausethis is crucial to the issue of the ongoing loot-ing. Our argument here is that some of theseself-appointed “universal museums” which wehave mentioned are condoning and even in-directly promoting the continuing looting ofthe heritage. This reduces what might other-wise have been coherent arguments in theirDeclaration to little more than pretentioussophistry.

FROM STEINHARDT TOSCHULTZ: MUSEUMRECIDIVISM

The disquieting current position of U.S. mu-seums as regards illegally excavated and/or ex-ported archaeological material can be gaugedfrom a brief of amici curiae (“friends of thecourt”) submitted in support of the New Yorkcollector Michael Steinhardt’s defense of hisownership of an ancient gold phiale (Lyons2002, Shapreau 2000). The gold phiale (bowl)in question dates to the third century B.C.and was discovered in Sicily sometime duringthe late 1970s. It “surfaced” in 1980 when itwas acquired by the Sicilian antiquities dealerVincenzo Cammarata. In 1991 Cammaratatraded the phiale to the then Swiss-baseddealer William Veres, who arranged for itssale to Steinhardt through the mediation ofanother dealer, Robert Haber. Steinhardt isa generous benefactor of the MetropolitanMuseum, and the phiale was authenticatedby the Metropolitan’s conservation labora-tory before Steinhardt took possession of itin 1992. Then, in 1995, acting on a com-plaint submitted by the Italian governmentthat the phiale had been illegally exportedfrom Italy, U.S. Customs agents seized thephiale, and Steinhardt was forced to estab-lish ownership in a New York District Court.The Court ruled against Steinhardt, for two

NSPA: NationalStolen Property Act

ASMD: theAssociation ofScience MuseumDirectors

AASLH: theAmericanAssociation for Stateand Local History

reasons: first, that archaeological heritage inItaly is state property and that therefore ar-chaeological objects that are removed fromItaly without authorization constitute stolenproperty under the U.S. NSPA; second, thatthe import of the phiale into the United Stateshad been facilitated by false statements on cus-toms forms. Its place of origin was there givenas Switzerland instead of Italy, and its valuewas given as $250,000, when in fact Steinhardthad paid $1 million.

Steinhardt appealed against the DistrictCourt’s decision, at which point the U.S. mu-seums’ community intervened. In 1998 theAAM submitted a brief of amici curiae in sup-port of Steinhardt in its own right, and actingalso on behalf of the AAMD, the ASMD, andthe AASLH, which represents history muse-ums. A counter brief was submitted by theAIA, on behalf of the AAA, the United StatesCommittee for the International Council onMonuments and Sites, the SAA, the AmericanPhilological Association, and the Society forHistorical Archaeology. The AAM’s brief dis-tanced itself from the issue of false customsdeclarations, stating that museums “would notcondone any improper conduct, including themaking of false statements on Customs forms”(AAM 2000, p. 77). The main thrust of thebrief was that foreign patrimony statutes (na-tional laws vesting ownership of unknown andundiscovered archaeological heritage in thestate) should not be recognized in U.S. courtsof law. The issue of patrimony laws had beena vexed one since a court decision in the 1970s(Gerstenblith 2002, p. 27), and the AAM’sbrief argued that patrimony laws are counterto both U.S. law (which allows private own-ership of archaeological heritage originatingon land that is not federal property) and U.S.public policy (as they place a restriction on thefree trade of cultural objects).

The remarkable thing about the 2000 briefis that it constituted a complete reversal of theAAM’s previous policy. In 1985 the AAM hadopposed an ultimately failed amendment tothe NSPA, which had proposed that publicly-owned antiquities should be excluded from

www.annualreviews.org • Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage 355

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

NADAOPA:National Associationof Dealers inAncient, Orientaland Primitive Art

the category of stolen property. The amend-ment would, the AAM at that time argued,“encourage the depredation of archaeologicalsites and the illegal export of cultural mate-rial from its country of origin” (AAM 1985,p. 156).

It is a further surprising feature of the 2000AAM brief that, although it condemns thelooting of archaeological sites (AAM 2000,pp. 80, 99 n.6), nowhere does it address whatshould be the central and contentious fact ofthe Steinhardt case—that the phiale in ques-tion is, in all probability, a looted object. Yetby defending the right of a private citizen topurchase and own such an object, the AAM,together with the AAMD, the ASMD, and theAASLH, has, in effect, condoned the lootingprocess, despite protestations to the contrary.We consider that their position implies a scan-dalous disregard for the archaeological her-itage and the need for its conservation. But thefurther issue we wish in particular to considerhere is that what would appear to be the entireU.S. museum community, without any clearexception or protest, and notwithstanding thecampaigning tradition of some museums inactively opposing the illegal trade, threw itssupport behind Steinhardt in his fight overthe phiale.

In the event, in 1999 the Second CircuitCourt of Appeal ruled against Steinhardt, al-though it sidestepped the thorny problem ofthe applicability of the Italian patrimony lawwhen it decided that the false customs dec-larations constituted in themselves sufficientgrounds for the phiale’s forfeiture. But the is-sue of foreign patrimony laws did not go awaywith the phiale. It was back in contention twoyears later at the trial of Frederick Schultz.

In 2001, Schultz, a Manhattan antiq-uities dealer and former president of theNADAOPA, was charged with conspir-ing to receive, possess, and sell antiquitiesstolen from archaeological sites in Egypt(Gerstenblith 2002, 2003b). Schultz hadobtained at least eight antiquities fromthe British antiquities restorer JonathanTokely-Parry, who in 1997 had himself been

tried and convicted in a British court of han-dling stolen Egyptian antiquities, and sen-tenced to six years’ imprisonment. Schultz hadalso provided advance funding for some ofTokely-Parry’s operations.

Schultz’s trial hinged upon the applica-bility of the Egyptian patrimony law, passedin 1983, and in February 2002 Schultz wasjudged guilty as charged, and sentenced toa 33-month imprisonment. He appealed butin June 2003 the Second Circuit Court ofAppeals upheld his conviction. The Schultzdecision reaffirmed the precedent set by the1970s decision that U.S. courts can enforceforeign patrimony laws. This decision is theone that had been feared by the museumsin the Steinhardt case, but there is no signyet that U.S. museums are “besieged by civilreplevin claims from foreign governments”as predicted by the AAM’s Steinhardt brief(AAM 2000, p. 97). It is true that U.S. mu-seums will in future have to be more carefulabout acquiring “unprovenanced” antiquitieson the market, but that is no bad thing.

WHERE DOES THERESPONSIBILITY LIE? THEACADEMIC WORLD AND THEPUBLIC

Although the major U.S. museum or-ganizations are clearly not exercising anadequate leadership role, it is likely that theywould take a lead from the public, if thewider public subscribed to and supporteda well-defined ethical policy. And here thefocus of attention must turn to the educa-tionalists. Well-informed specialist voices,especially in the United States, have indeeddrawn attention to these issues for manyyears. Clemency Coggins (1969) was oneof the first to develop the theme, whichhas been strenuously developed over theyears since by such writers as Hester Davis,Karen Vitelli, Patty Gerstenblith, RicardoElia, and others to whose work we havereferred here. In Europe, until recently wehave looked to Christopher Chippindale,

356 Brodie · Renfrew

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

David Gill, and Daniel Graepler. Since 1978the AIA has maintained the policy that theeditors of the American Journal of Archaeologywould not publish articles or reports based onartifacts acquired in contravention of the 1970UNESCO Convention (Ridgway & Wheeler1978) and the SAA has adopted a similarposition.

Yet somehow the voice of professional ar-chaeology, effectively and authoritatively ex-pressed in this way, has not yet prevailed.This must in large part be the consequenceof the failure of the professional archaeolo-gists and the ethically-based museums, suchas the University of Pennsylvania Museum,to persuade museum directors and trusteesin the United States that there is a signif-icant problem here which can only be ad-dressed by codified acquisition policies thatfollow the 1970 Rule, as advocated by theAIA. It seems extraordinary that in 1998 rep-resentatives of the AAMD met privately withFrederick Schultz in his capacity as Presidentof NADAOPA (Robinson 1998b), at a timewhen he was already under investigation bythe FBI, to discuss support for the position ofMichael Steinhardt in the matter of the goldphiale.

Something is wrong somewhere. How is itthat the professional view has not prevailed?How is it that a group of art museum directors,supported by a number of wealthy collectors,can work against the evident long-term inter-est of the world’s archaeological heritage inthis way? And why is not the entire academiccommunity in the United States expressingshock and horror that a group of museum di-rectors can claim to be representing all U.S.museums in filing their amici curiae brief inthe Steinhardt case? How is it that the Schultzconviction does not make them feel that some-thing is wrong somewhere when the recentPresident of NADAOPA, from whose mem-bers the museums which they direct have beenpurchasing antiquities for many years, is jailedfor an offense relating to “unprovenanced”(in fact, stolen and falsely provenanced)antiquities?

Part of the problem is the reluctance ofthe academic community to become engagedin the debate. As long ago as 1979, while shewas editor of the Journal of Field Archaeology’s“The Antiquities Market,” Karen Vitelli wasforced to ask “What have you done aboutthe antiquities market today?” (Vitelli 1979,pp. 75–77). She was dismayed by the volumeof complaints she was receiving about theantiquities trade, all asking her to “do some-thing.” Vitelli answered that she was not thehead of a large organization, able to mobilizeresources at will, nor was it her personal vo-cation or crusade. Doubtless, Ellen Herscherand Timothy Kaiser, Vitelli’s successors at“The Antiquities Market,” suffered in similarfashion. We know from our own experienceat the IARC that far too many archaeologiststhink they have discharged their responsibil-ities in that direction by complaining to us oradvising us of what they see to be an appropri-ate course of action. But, like Vitelli, there isa physical limit to what we alone can achieve.

In retrospect, the years 2002–2004 willcome to be seen as years of ethical crisis for ourtreatment of the world’s archaeological her-itage, but nobody yet seems to have noticed.In 2002 the ACCP was formed, with a Coun-cil composed of museum-associated lawyersand curators, and a Board of Advisors con-sisting of wealthy private collectors and di-rectors of large museums. Two years later, in2004, the AAMD published the report of itsTask Force enquiry into the acquisition of ar-chaeological materials and ancient art, whichcontains the revisionist guidelines referred toabove (AAMD 2004). Perhaps some membersof the Task Force were also members of theACCP’s Board of Advisors? Unfortunately,like so many things in the antiquities trade,we have not been told, although it would be inthe public interest to know. One thing is clearthough: the new AAMD guidelines, which arein complete contradiction of the ICOM Codeof Ethics, and which therefore threaten to iso-late U.S. museums from their larger interna-tional community, will no doubt receive thepowerful and influential backing of the ACCP.

www.annualreviews.org • Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage 357

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

Unless action is taken now to oppose this com-bined initiative, there is a danger that manymuseums will feel able to lapse back into whatThomas Hoving would call a “second age ofpiracy.”

The only new and constructive responsesto this crisis that we can see developing areSAFE and the Lawyers’ Committee for Cul-tural Heritage Preservation, and these organi-zations were the initiatives of concerned me-dia professionals and of lawyers, respectively,not academic or professional archaeologists.Nevertheless, SAFE is attracting the supportof the archaeological and ethical museumscommunities, and we hope that the academic

world in the United States will give coherentand sustained support to SAFE, as well as tothe AIA and to the other professional associ-ations, and to their officials who, already 25years ago, were clearly defining the issues.

When we submitted an early draft of thisarticle to the Annual Review of Anthropology,one editorial response was: “Don’t preach tothe choir.” The problem is that although thechoir has been in tune for a long time now,some of the congregation do not yet seem tobe singing from the same hymn sheet. Per-haps it is time that they are persuaded to takemore interest in these matters, and broughtinto effective harmony.

LITERATURE CITED

AAM. 1985. Testimony of the American Association of Museums before a hearing of theCommittee on Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal law. In Hearing Before the Committeeon Criminal Law of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Ninety-ninth Congresson S.605. Ser. No. J-99–27, pp. 156–59. Washington, DC: US Gov. Print. Off.

AAM. 2000. Brief of amici curiae American Association of Museums, et al. in support of theappeal of claimant Michael H. Steinhardt. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 9:76–105

AAMD. 2004. Report of the AAMD task force on the acquisition of archaeological materials and ancie-nt art. http://www.aamd.org/papers/documents/June10FinalTaskForceReport 001.pdf

AIA. 2000. Memorandum of law of amici curiae Archaeological Institute of America, et al., insupport of appellees United States of America and Republic of Italy. Int. J. Cult. Prop.9:105–30

Ali I, Coningham R. 1998. Recording and preserving Gandhara’s cultural heritage. Cult. With-out Context 3:10–16

Alva W. 2001. The destruction, looting and traffic of the archaeological heritage of Peru. SeeBrodie et al. 2001, pp. 89–96

Atwood R. 2004. Stealing History: Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of the Ancient World.New York: St. Martin’s

Biddle M. 1980. New directions. Exped. 22:2–3Br. Mus. 2004. British Museum policy on acquisitions. http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/

corporate/guidance/Acquisitions.pdfBedaux RMA, Rowlands M. 2001. The future of Mali’s past. Antiquity 75:872–76Bogdanos M. 2003. Iraq Museum investigation: 22 Apr–8 Sep 03. http://www.defenselink.mil/

news/Sep2003/d20030922fr.pdfBrodie N. 1998. Pity the poor middlemen. Cult. Without Context 3:7–9Brodie NJ, Doole J. 2004. The Asian art affair: US art museum collections of Asian art and

archaeology. In Material Engagements: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew, ed. NJ Brodie,C Hills, pp. 83–108. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res.

358 Brodie · Renfrew

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

Brodie NJ, Doole J, Renfrew C, eds. 2001. Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The Destruction of theWorld’s Archaeological Heritage. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res

Brodie NJ, Doole J, Watson P. 2000. Stealing History. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Ar-chaeol. Res.

Brodie NJ, Tubb KW, eds. 2002. Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction ofArchaeology. London: Routledge

Chippindale C, Gill DWJ. 2000. Material consequences of contemporary classical collecting.Am. J. Archaeol. 104:463–511

Coggins C. 1969. Illicit traffic in Pre-Columbian antiquities. Art J. 29:94–98D’Arcy D. 2002. Legal group to fight “retentionist” policies. The Art Newsp. 130:3Doole J. 1999. In the news. Cult. Without Context 4:5–14Doole J. 2001. In the news. Cult. Without Context 9:16–23Elia R. 2001. Analysis of the looting, selling and collecting of Apulian red-figure vases: a

quantitative approach. See Brodie et al. 2001, pp. 145–54Eule JC. 2004. 15 Jahre Berliner Erklarung, In Illegale Archaologie?, ed. W-D Heilmeyer, JC

Eule, pp. 96–104. Berlin: Weissensee VerlagFernandez Cacho S, Sanjuan LG. 2000. Site looting and illicit trade of archaeological objects

in Andalusia, Spain. Cult. Without Context 7:17–24Feroozi AW, Tarzi Z. 2004. The impact of war upon Afghanistan’s cultural heritage. http://www.

archaeological.org/Gerstenblith P. 1995. The Kanakaria mosaics and the United States law on the restitution of

stolen and illegally exported cultural property. See Tubb 1995, pp. 105–21Gerstenblith P. 2002. United States v. Schultz. Cult. Without Context 10:27–31Gerstenblith P. 2003a. Acquisition and deacquisition of museum collections and the fiduciary

obligations of museums to the public. Cardozo J. Int. Comp. Law 11:409–65Gerstenblith P. 2003b. The McClain/Schultz doctrine: another step against the trade in stolen

antiquities. Cult. Without Context 13:5–8Gilgan E. 2001. Looting and the market for Maya objects: a Belizean perspective. See Brodie

et al. 2001, pp. 73–87Gill DWJ, Chippindale C. 1993. Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladic

figures. Am. J. Archaeol. 97:601–59Graepler D. 1993. Fundort: Unbekannt. Raubgrabungen Zerstoren das Archaologische Erbe. Munich:

Walter BierungGutchen M. 1983. The destruction of archaeological resources in Belize, Central America. J.

Field Archaeol. 10:217–27Heilmeyer W-D, Eule JC. 2004. Illegale Archaologie? Berlin: WeißenseeHenley J. 2000. Louvre hit by looted art row. The Observer, Apr. 23:25Hoving T. 1996. False Impressions. London: Andre DeutschHowland RH. 1997. Mycenaean Treasures of the Aegean Bronze Age Repatriated. Washington,

DC: Soc. Preserv. Greek Herit.ICOM. 2004. Code of Ethics for Museums. Paris: ICOMKaufman JE. 1996. Getty decides publishing equals provenance. The Art Newsp. 6(61):17Kaye LM. 1995. The view from the Bosphorous. Presented at Art Theft Control, Nov. 14–15,

LondonKaye LM, Main CT. 1995. The saga of the Lydian Hoard antiquities: from Usak to New York

and back and some related observations on the law of cultural repatriation. See Tubb 1995,pp. 150–62

Kirkpatrick SD. 1992. Lords of Sipan. New York: Morrow

www.annualreviews.org • Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage 359

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

Kokkou A, ed. 1993. The Getty Kouros Colloquium. Athens: N.P. Goulandris Found./J. PaulGetty Mus.

Lewis G. 2004. The Universal Museum: a special case? ICOM News 2004(1):1Leyten H, ed. 1995. Illicit Traffic in Cultural Property: Museums Against Pillage. Amsterdam: R.

Trop. Inst.Litt S. 2004. A god of myth clothed in mystery: museum takes heat over ancient Apollo. The

Plain Dealer, Sept. 12Lyons CL. 2002. Objects and identities: claiming and reclaiming the past. In Claiming the

Stones. Naming the Bones, ed. E Barkan, R Bush, pp. 116–40. Los Angeles: Getty Res. Inst.Messenger PM, ed. 1999. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property. Albuquerque: Univ. N.M.Meyer KE. 1973. The Plundered Past. London: HamiltonNørskov V. 2002. Greek Vases in New Contexts. Aarhus: Aarhus Univ. PressO’Keefe PJ. 1997. Trade in Antiquities: Reducing Destruction and Theft. London:

Archetype/UNESCOO’Neill M. 2004. Enlightenment museums: universal or merely global? Mus. Soc. 2:192–202Ortiz G. 1996. In Pursuit of the Absolute, Art of the Ancient World from the George Ortiz Collection.

Berne: BenteliPal P. 1997. A Collecting Odyssey. Indian, Himalayan and Southeast Asian Art from the James and

Marilynn Alsdorf Collection. Chicago: Art Inst. ChicagoPastore G. 2001. The looting of archaeological sites in Italy. See Brodie et al. 2001, pp. 155–60Renfrew C. 2000. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership. London: DuckworthRenfrew C. 2004. Thoughts on the impact on the Swiss accession to the 1970 UNESCO

Convention. In Not for Sale, a Swiss-British Conference on the Traffic in Artifacts from Iraq,Afghanistan and Beyond, ed. M Kimmich, pp. 8–10. Berne: Br. Counc.

Ridgway BS, Wheeler TS. 1978. Editorial statement. Am. J. Archaeol. 82:1Robinson WV. 1998a. New MFA link seen to looted artifacts. The Boston Globe, Dec. 27:A1,

A30–31Robinson WV. 1998b. Museums’ stance on Nazi loot belies their role in a key case. The Boston

Globe, Feb. 13:A1Robinson WV, Yemma J. 1998. Harvard Museum acquisitions shock scholars. The Boston Globe,

Jan. 16:A1Rose M, Acar O. 1995. Turkey’s war on the illicit antiquities trade. Archaeology 48:45–56Russell JM. 1997. The modern sack of Nineveh and Nimrud. Cult. Without Context 1:6–20Schick J. 1998. The Gods are Leaving the Country: Art Theft from Nepal. Bangkok: Orchid PressSchmidt PR, McIntosh RJ. 1996. Plundering Africa’s Past. London: CurreyShapreau CJ. 2000. Second Circuit holds that false statements contained in customs forms

warrant forfeiture of ancient gold phiale—hotly contested foreign patrimony issue notreached by the Court: United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold. Int. J. Cult. Prop.9:49–76

Stead IM. 1998. The Salisbury Hoard. Stroud: TempusSymposium 1994. The international symposium on the looted antiquities from Iraq during the

war of 1991. Final Rep. Baghdad, Dec. 10–12Toner M. 2002. The Past in Peril. Tallahassee: Southeast Archaeol. Cent.True M. 1997. Refining policy to promote partnership. In Antichita Senza Provenienza II, ed. P

Pelagatti, PG Guzzo, pp. 137–46. Bolletino D’Arte Suppl. 101–2. Rome: Minist. I BeniCult. Ambientali

True M, Hamma K, eds. 1994. A Passion for Antiquities: Ancient Art from the Collection of Barbaraand Lawrence Fleischman. Malibu: J. Paul Getty Mus.

360 Brodie · Renfrew

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-18 ARI 25 August 2005 15:5

Tubb KW, ed. 1995. Antiquities Trade or Betrayed: Legal, Ethical and Conservation Issues. London:Archetype/UKIC

UNESCO. 2003. UNESCO second assessment mission to Iraq, 28 June–7 July 2003. http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL ID=14658&URL DO=DO TOPIC&URLSECTION=201.html

Vitelli KD. 1979. What have you done about the antiquities market today? J. Field Archaeol.6:75–77

Vitelli KD, ed. 1996. Archaeol. Ethics. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMiravon Bothmer D. 1990. Glories of the Past, Ancient Art from the Shelby White and Leon Levy

Collection. New York: Metrop. Mus. Art.Watson P. 1997. Sotheby’s: Inside Story. London: BloomsburyWatson P. 1998. The sequestered warehouses. Cult. Without Context 2:11–14Wright HT, Wilkinson TJ, Gibson M. 2003. The National Geographic Society’s Cultural Assess-

ment. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0611 030611 iraqlootingreport.html.

www.annualreviews.org • Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage 361

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Annual Review ofAnthropology

Volume 34, 2005

Contents

FrontispieceSally Falk Moore � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � xvi

Prefatory Chapter

Comparisons: Possible and ImpossibleSally Falk Moore � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Archaeology

Archaeology, Ecological History, and ConservationFrances M. Hayashida � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �43

Archaeology of the BodyRosemary A. Joyce � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 139

Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage: The InadequateResponseNeil Brodie and Colin Renfrew � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 343

Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 429

The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 575

Biological Anthropology

Early Modern HumansErik Trinkaus � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 207

Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

The Ecologies of Human Immune FunctionThomas W. McDade � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 495

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

New Directions in Pidgin and Creole StudiesMarlyse Baptista � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �33

Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of LanguageWilliam F. Hanks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �67

Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast AsiaN.J. Enfield � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 181

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 269

Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 293

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological DiversityLuisa Maffi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 599

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 409

Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 549

Sociocultural Anthropology

The Cultural Politics of Body SizeHelen Gremillion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �13

Too Much for Too Few: Problems of Indigenous Land Rights in LatinAmericaAnthony Stocks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �85

Intellectuals and Nationalism: Anthropological EngagementsDominic Boyer and Claudio Lomnitz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 105

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 121

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

An Excess of Description: Ethnography, Race, and Visual TechnologiesDeborah Poole � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 159

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 231

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 253

The Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of LifeSharon R. Kaufman and Lynn M. Morgan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 317

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 363

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 385

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 409

The Evolution of Human Physical AttractivenessSteven W. Gangestad and Glenn J. Scheyd � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 523

Mapping Indigenous LandsMac Chapin, Zachary Lamb, and Bill Threlkeld � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 619

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous GroupsA. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 667

Enhancement Technologies and the BodyLinda F. Hogle � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 695

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pena � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 717

Surfacing the Body InteriorJanelle S. Taylor � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 741

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Theme 1: Race and Racism

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 231

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 269

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 363

The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 575

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 667

Theme 2: Indigenous Peoples

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 121

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 253

Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 293

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 385

Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 429

Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 549

x Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological DiversityLuisa Maffi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 599

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous GroupsA. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pena � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 717

Indexes

Subject Index � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 757

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 26–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 771

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 26–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 774

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology chaptersmay be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents xi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:343

-361

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Gla

sgow

Uni

vers

ity o

n 08

/15/

12. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.