It is fifty years since UNESCO adopted the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property to counter the illicit trade in cultural objects. The Art Newspaper reports a bizarre advertising campaign commissioned by UNESCO from the agency DDB Paris to support its celebration of UNESCO action against illicit trade since then. Titled The Real Price of Art, the campaign features (or featured – it has been taken down) a series of five montages presenting an “illicit antiquity” against a background of what is imagined to be a collector’s home, together with a text describing the sordid provenance of the antiquity in question. Unfortunately, it turns out the antiquities are not illicit. The images appear to have been lifted from the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s online database and are of objects that entered the Met’s collection legitimately many decades ago. This really is pathetic. There are people all over the world who have spent years or even decades documenting the illicit trade, often at their own personal expense, and their efforts have been completely ignored. How much money did UNESCO waste paying DDB Paris for this embarrassment? It would have been much better spent supporting people who are doing serious documentation.
And if that isn’t bad enough, the Art Newspaper also reports that UNESCO is quoting long discredited figures about the value of the illicit trade, stating that it is “estimated to be worth nearly $10 billion each year”. Whose estimates? UNESCO doesn’t say. Certainly not mine. I was co-author of a recent European Union report that debunked such outlandish figures (pages 78-96). UNESCO should be supporting good quality evidence-led research into the trade of a type that is sorely needed but in short supply, not wasting money on glitzy media presentations. And it should be reading the results of research when it does exist, not ignoring it.
In these populist days of fake news and alternative facts, scaremongering campaigns just don’t cut it. As the Art Newspaper reports demonstrate, they are badly counterproductive as they can be used to undermine more realistic assessments of the illicit trade and the damage it causes. Reliable documentation and research are key for effective policy and action.
And let us be clear, fifty years after the adoption of the UNESCO Convention the persistence of illicit trade is not a cause for celebration, it is a cause for reflection and despair.
I recently came across the text of a lecture delivered by International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) chairman Vincent Geerling in 2016. In it, there are comments about some previously published work of mine:
The most bizarre figures about the size of the illicit market are taken for granted and quoted by government officials without even thinking critically about their validity. What is worse, these false figures form the basis of draconian measures against ‘the trade’ and result in the misdirection of the limited resources of law enforcement agencies such as yourselves.
This ‘multibillion illegal trade’ with its ‘invisible mafia structures’ has to be halted, officials shout from the rooftops. The urgency is underlined by the alleged size of the illicit market: Claims of $2-3 billion followed by $6-8 billion have done the rounds, while the winner is der Spiegel, who in August 2015 claimed $7-15 billion, quoting UNESCO as the source for their fake figures in order to give them credibility.
The truth is that nobody knows the size of the illicit market. So IADAA asked Ivan Macquisten, a journalist, to find the primary source of the $2 billion.
He initially traced it back to a 2000 report by Brodie, Watson and Dooley, “Stealing History: The Illicit Trade in Cultural Material”, which quoted the figure and gave as its source an article in The Independent newspaper, ‘Great sale of the century’, by Geraldine Norman dating back to November 24, 1990. However, Ivan has now secured a copy of that article and it gives no figure at all. Brodie now publicly regrets ever quoting the (non-existent) figure, which may well be the source for the FBI’s figures.
So nobody knows the size of the illicit market, yet senior politicians in the United States continue to quote discredited figures in the hundreds of millions for the value of the trade in looted Syrian objects as justification for introducing news laws banning the import of even legitimate items and calling for further measures.
It looks like I am being blamed here for setting in motion claims that the antiquities trade is worth billions of dollars annually. But this is not what was actually said in Stealing History (2000; and the authors are Neil Brodie, Jenny Doole and Peter Watson, not Brodie, Watson and Dooley), which on page 23 states:
Geraldine Norman has estimated that the illicit trade in antiquities, world-wide, may be as much as $2 billion a year; other estimates have ranged down to $150 million. As already pointed out, because the trade is clandestine, reliable data is hard to find.
we were trying to do here was to set out a range of previously published value estimates,
from high to low, with a view to coming up with something more accurate – presumably something in-between. We were not suggesting the illicit
trade should be valued annually at $2 billion, or for that matter at $150
million. We were not trying to exaggerate the value of the trade. We were
simply making the point that previously published estimates were subject to an
alarming degree of variation and were inherently unreliable. After examining
problems with various data sources and trying but largely failing to arrive at
a more accurate figure, we concluded on page 25 that there was a need for ‘more
reliable statistics to give usable information on the size of the trade’. Regrettably,
twenty years later, the need for more reliable statistics remains acute and
organisations such as the IADAA have done nothing to help. Given that we were
criticising the unreliability of previously published estimates, I don’t regret
that we quoted the figure of $2 billion, no more than I regret quoting the
figure of $150 million. The whole point was to demonstrate the broad range of
monetary estimates based on unpublished if not non-existent data. I do regret
that many reporters and others since then have ignored the argument about absent
data and unfounded statistics and continued to claim multi-billion-dollar sums
without offering any supporting evidence. I believe Geerling and myself are in
broad agreement on that point at least.
Geerling said the IADAA had asked Ivan Macquisten to find the primary source of the $2 billion claim, and that Macquisten had traced it back to me. I assume this is Macquisten writing on the Antiquities Dealers’ Association (ADA) website, where he identifies one original source as the:
2000 report by Jenny Dooley, Neil Brodie and Peter Watson of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research in the University of Cambridge, Stealing History: The Illicit Trade in Cultural Material, which references Independent article, Great sale of the century, by Geraldine Norman on November 24, 1990. The 2000 report also acknowledged the true value might be much less. Also thought to be the basis for FBI figure, according to Oxford Archaeologist Emma Cunliffe. However, the Norman article does not mention such a figure (ADA n.d.).
Dooley again? Come on guys, get it right, it was Neil Brodie, Jenny Doole and Peter Watson. But I digress. Macquisten does recognise here that we understood the true value of the illicit trade was likely to be less than $2 billion, though he seems to have forgotten that qualification in a paper he has recently published entitled ‘Fake news and the antiquities trade’ (Macquisten 2019). From the title, you might imagine he was talking about IADAA or ADA trade statistics, of which more below. But no, he was tackling what he considers to be exaggerated value assessments and dismissing them as fake news. In particular, he was dissecting an impact assessment (IA) published by the European Commission (2017). Among other things, the IA states that:
According to studies, the total financial value of the illegal antiquities and art trade is larger than any other area of international crime except arms trafficking and narcotics and has been estimated at $3 to 6 billion yearly.
IA references the ‘$3 to 6 billion yearly’ statistic to a paper written by Lisa
Borodkin in 1995, who in turn referenced other sources. Macquisten chased those
sources down and quite rightly dismissed them as inadequate. But then in his
paper he went on to say this:
Also cited in the same set of footnotes in the IA is Neil Brodie, Jenny Doole and Peter Watson’s 2000 report, Stealing History: The Illicit Trade in Cultural Material, which does quote a similar figure. On page 23, it states: “Geraldine Norman has estimated that the illicit trade in antiquities, world-wide, may be as much as $2 billion a year.” On page 60, under the relevant footnote, it gives the source as follows: Norman G., Great Sale of the Century. Independent, November 24, 1990. However, the Norman article mentions no figure whatsoever.
The ‘set of footnotes’ referred to is on page 12 of the IA, with the particular footnote referencing page 16 of Stealing History in relation to the IA’s statement that there are ‘Links between the antiquities trade and drug, wildlife and arms trafficking’. Well, Stealing History does not actually mention wildlife or arms, but the real point here is that the IA is not referencing Stealing History in relation to its ‘$3 to 6 Billion yearly’ claim, so why did Macquisten mention it? Notice he drags up the Norman misattribution again. He is right, of course, the attribution is wrong. Mea culpa. But the misdirected attribution does not invalidate the substance of the argument Stealing History was making about phantom data and unverifiable statistics. He could easily have contacted me to check the facts, but found it easier or more convenient to keep talking about a misattribution. But back in 2000, when we were writing Stealing History, what exactly were the facts? Macquisten himself has identified the 1993 claim by Caroline Wakeford of the Art Loss Register that the worldwide market in stolen art was worth about $3 billion. She in turn was possibly quoting an estimate made around the same time by Scotland Yard that the annual value of stolen art worldwide was £3 billion (Palmer 1995: 3). Art is a broad category, probably including antiques and paintings, but a few years later, writing specifically about the illicit trade in cultural objects, Maria Kouroupas stated that ‘according to Interpol, it now ranks with drugs and arms as one of the three most serious illicit international trading activities, valued at approximately $4.5 billion annually’ (Kouroupas 1998). In 2005, Kate Fitz Gibbon continued pointing the finger at Interpol when she said:
Like many popular myths, the billion-dollar figure has been repeated so often that its origin is difficult to trace. So many citations claim to be based on an Interpol estimate produced in the late 1990s that Interpol has made the following statement: “We do not possess any figures which would enable us to claim that trafficking in cultural property is the third or fourth most common form of trafficking, although this is frequently mentioned at international conferences and in the media. In fact, it is very difficult to gain an exact idea of how many items of cultural property are stolen throughout the world and it is unlikely that there will ever be any accurate statistics.
for Fitz Gibbon at least, the billion-dollar figure had nothing to do with Stealing History.
IA goes on to footnote Stealing History
two more times. It references page 13 of Stealing
History in support of the statement that:
Foreign demand for illicit cultural goods provides local impoverished populations with a supplement to their meagre income (so-called ‘subsistence digging’). The chain of supply starts with common thieves and tomb robbers in source countries, who often destroy the archaeological context and damage the objects themselves while excavating. For relatively small amounts of money, they sell the objects to professional dealers and middlemen, who transport the goods towards final destinations.
actually did say something like that. But on page 14 the IA also footnotes Stealing History to support its claim
Multi-billion antiquities revenues are used by Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, to say nothing of more common drug smugglers dealing also in antiquities.
Al-Qaeda only came to general attention with the September 11 attacks in 2001, and I am not sure we had even heard of the organisation when we were writing Stealing History, we certainly didn’t mention it. Nor did we mention Hezbollah or the Taliban, nor did we imply that they were predating upon a multi-billion-dollar antiquities trade. Given the general debunking drift of his paper, I would have expected Macquisten to have taken down this misattribution and absolved us of any blame. But he didn’t. Why not? Instead we have only his observation about the erroneous Norman attribution in relation to an IA statement not actually referencing the Stealing History passage he is concerned about. To me, this looks like a piece of disingenuous argumentation, ostensibly aimed at making a factual criticism but in reality intended to discredit an authority (me). Mind you, having said all that, I agree with some of what Macquisten had to say. A state-of-the-art report prepared for the European Commission in 2017 should not have been inaccurately referencing publications that were 15 or 20 years old when more up-to-date material was available.
his paper, Macquisten went on to discuss a BBC World Service radio programme
broadcast in February 2019 entitled Zombie Statistics, in which he featured. Again
though, on the programme, Macquisten stated publicly that we now admit we got
the $2 billion figure wrong. We admit no such thing. It was not our figure to
get wrong. (In passing, he made a bit of a zombie claim of his own, saying
there is evidence of looted material from Syria and Iraq going to the Far East,
but without saying what the evidence is. It would be useful for the evidence to
be made public).
his 2016 lecture, Geerling continued that:
We have no idea about the real size of the illicit market, but what we do know is the size of the legitimate market. IADAA carried out research on the size of the market of 2013; the combined sales figures of dealers and auction houses in the entire western world. The result is a reliable figure of €150–200 million.
years earlier, the Antiquities Dealers Association (ADA) had estimated that
there was a ‘world turnover of classical antiquities of perhaps £200–300
million’ (ADA 2000: 56). In 2005, I think using a different data set, Arielle
Kozloff had arrived at a figure of around $100–200 million for the trade
worldwide (Kozloff 2005: 187). The three studies are tabulated below.
we are expected to believe that the value of the antiquities trade diminished
over the 13-year period 2000–2013? It doesn’t seem likely. The published
figures are meaningless, usually based on phantom data that are never published
or made available for independent verification. Nevertheless, looking at these
figures now with fresh eyes, the reality of a $1–2 billion annual trade does begin
to look more believable. They value the trade in what are generally called classical
antiquities, from the ancient cultures of Europe, North Africa and West Asia,
and exclude Internet sales. If equivalent figures were made available for the
trades in American, African, Asian and Islamic antiquities, together with
ancient coins and manuscripts, and Internet sales, they would quite likely tip
the value of total trade over the $1 billion mark and perhaps even take it up
towards $2 billion. And notice I said ‘trade’ here, not ‘illegal trade’.
It would be easy for trade organisations such as the ADA and IADAA to disprove multi-billion-dollar claims simply by publishing their own data sets and making them available for public scrutiny. All this reference chasing and debunking should not be necessary. But they have consistently failed to do so and have continued instead to engage in tilting at straw men. Remember, it is now 20 years since Stealing History was published, ample time for the trade to have conducted and published a systematic financial survey, especially if they are so concerned about the continuing dissemination of exaggerated value estimates. The IADAA (2013) has published a summary breakdown of its overall figure, which is a start, though it still falls far short of a full data description which is what is required.
did not invent the claim that the antiquities trade should be valued at
billions of dollars worldwide. In fact, it was trying to expose the uncertainty
of those claims a decade or more before Geerling or Macquisten got in on the
act and it should be credited accordingly. Trade organisations spend a lot of
time trying to discredit the work of people such as myself, but never manage to
offer anything concrete in return to support their arguments. Until that does
happen, sceptics such as myself must be excused for regarding their efforts as
little more than fake news in return.
2000. Memorandum submitted by the Antiquities Dealers Association, in Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade,
Volume II, Minutes of Evidence. London: Stationery Office, 56-66.
n.d. Headline figures and misleading statistics relating to antiquities and the
Syrian crisis, ADA website.
2013. Summary of the IADAA research about the worldwide legitimate antiquities
market in 2013. Cultural Property News website.
Lisa, 1995. The economics of antiquities looting and a proposed legal
alternative, Columbia Law Review 95:
Neil, Jenny Doole and Peter Watson, 2000. Stealing
History. Cambridge: McDonald Institute.
Vincent, 2016. Collecting ancient art, an old tradition under attack, Cultural
Property News website.
Commission 2017. Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment
Accompanying the Document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the Import of Cultural Goods.
Gibbon, Kate, 2005. Editor’s note: the illicit trade – fact or fiction?, in
Kate Fitz Gibbon (ed.), Who Owns the
Past? New Brunswick: Rutgers, 179-182.
Maria P., 1998. Illicit trade in cultural objects, Conservation Perspectives, 13(1).
Arielle, 2005. The antiquities market: when, what, where, who, why … and how
much?, in Kate Fitz Gibbon (ed.), Who
Owns the Past? New Brunswick: Rutgers, 183-190.
Ivan, 2019. Fake news and the antiquities trade, Cahn’s Quarterly 2, 4-6.
Norman, 1995. Recovering stolen art, in Kathryn Walker Tubb (ed.), Antiquities Trade or Betrayed. London: