Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T00:13:29.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Current State of the Antiquities Trade: An Art Dealer’s Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2019

Randall Hixenbaugh*
Affiliation:
Hixenbaugh Ancient Art, New York, United States; Email: randall@hixenbaugh.net

Abstract:

The antiquities trade is the subject of contentious debate. The anti-trade position stems from a long unquestioned stance within academia that private ownership of antiquities inherently results in archaeological site destruction and the loss of valuable data. However, there is little data to support this notion. It also ignores the enormous contributions to our shared knowledge of the past that have been made through art collecting and museum acquisitions. The narrative that the destruction of ancient sites is directly tied to Western demand for ancient art is overly simplistic. Despite the ongoing destruction in the Middle East and North African region, virtually no artifacts from there have entered the Western trade in recent years. Opportunistic treasure hunting by desperate locals and intentional destruction of ancient objects for religious reasons cannot be curtailed by increased legislation in Western nations. Fetishizing mundane ubiquitous antiquities as sacrosanct objects of great national importance that must be retained within modern borders in a globalized world and demanding criminalization of the legitimate international art trade are counterproductive. In many archaeologically rich countries, antiquities are regarded as items to sell to foreigners at best or sacrilegious objects to be destroyed at worst. The free trade in cultural objects is itself an institution that needs to be protected. An open legitimate trade in antiquities is now more than ever necessary to ensure the preservation and dissemination of worldwide cultural property.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 2006. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Bator, Paul M. 1983. The International Trade in Art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beazley, John Davidson. 1942. Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cornu, Marie. 2014. “France.” In Nafziger, and Paterson, , Handbook on the Law of Cultural Heritage, 126–59.Google Scholar
Einhorn, Talia. 2014. “Israel.” In Nafziger, and Paterson, , Handbook on the Law of Cultural Heritage, 221–33.Google Scholar
Frigo, Manlio. 2014. “Italy.” In Nafziger, and Paterson, , Handbook on the Law of Cultural Heritage, 234–56.Google Scholar
Merryman, John H. 1986. “Two Ways of Thinking about Cultural Property.” American Journal of International Law 80, no. 4: 831–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merryman, John H. 2006. Imperialism, Art and Restitution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nafziger, James A. R. and Paterson, Robert K., eds. 2014. Handbook on the Law of Cultural Heritage and International Trade. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortiz, George. 1994. In Pursuit of the Absolute: Art of the Ancient World from the George Ortiz Collection. London: Royal Academy of Arts.Google Scholar
Van Lit, Tim. 2016. Cultural Property, War Crimes and Islamic State: Destruction, Plunder and Trafficking of Cultural Property and Heritage by Islamic State in Syria and Iraq—A War Crimes Perspective. Dutch National Police, Central Investigation Unit, War Crimes Unit.Google Scholar
Watt, James C. Y. 2009. “Antiquities and the Importance- and Limitations- of Archaeological Contexts.” In Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities, edited by Cuno, James, 89106. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar