In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

20 Archaeological Looting and Economic Justice Neil Brodie The Problem The illegal and destructive appropriation and trade of archaeological heritage is a well-documented phenomenon. It causes economic loss and cultural dislocation for the dispossessed “source” communities and countries, balanced by corresponding economic and cultural gains for the acquiring communities and countries. States and international NGOs have developed legal and other normative instruments aimed at controlling the trade, and relevant professional bodies are beginning to explore the ethical dimension. Nevertheless, laws and ethics have fallen short of their purpose, and the problem persists. The design of more appropriate legal and ethical responses is hampered by a poorly developed conceptual framework (with an imprecise terminology to match) founded upon a patchy evidence base of uncertain reliability. There is an urgent need for more empirical research and some innovative theoretical input. The problem can be theorized as one of value. There are various stakeholder interests in archaeological heritage: the interests of those who trade in it, those who study it, those who collect it, and those who have a religious, ethnic, or other attachment to it. These interests give rise to the differently constructed composites of cultural (symbolic, spiritual, aesthetic, educational) and economic value that are assigned to heritage (Lipe 1984; Throsby 2001:28–29) and expressed as sometimes contradictory claims for property rights. Recent research into what has been called subsistence digging has drawn attention to the economic value of archaeological heritage and emphasized the economic interest of all stakeholders, even though that interest is sometimes obscured or denied. The economic value of archaeological heritage is also being exploited through cultural tourism and has provided the incentive for some recent traveling museum exhibitions. Yet despite these manifestations, existing ethical and legal approaches to the protection of archaeological heritage overlook or ignore its economic dimension, and this might be one reason why they have not been totally effective. In view of this possibility, this chapter will 262 Neil Brodie investigate the economic value of archaeological heritage and make some tentative suggestions as to how it might be utilized in such a way as to improve the current protective regime. Subsistence Digging The term “subsistence digging” was introduced by Staley (1993) in his study of St. Lawrence Islanders and is used to describe the undocumented and usually illegal1 excavation of artifacts from archaeological sites that are then sold for subsistence purposes (Hollowell 2006a, 2006b; Matsuda 1998, 2005). Any effort to stop such digging in order to maintain the integrity of archaeological sites can then be construed as valuing archaeological heritage over human life. Meanwhile, cultural “specialists,” whether they be administrators, lawyers, archaeologists, museum curators, or art historians, may also derive economic benefit from their legitimate access to archaeological heritage while at the same time ignoring or denying its economic value, a point not lost on subsistence diggers (Barkan 2002:35; Matsuda 1998:93; Rao and Walton 2004:21). Thus it is argued that the characterization of subsistence digging as “looting” criminalizes what are already deprived communities, and subsistence diggers should instead be regarded as legitimate stakeholders in archaeological heritage. In fact, in situations of extreme poverty the digging and selling of artifacts might even be construed as a human right, as was debated at the World Archaeological Congress in 2003 (Hollowell 2006a:73–74). The financial returns from subsistence digging can be significant. It has been estimated, for example, that the hypothetical sale of all artifacts that might be obtained from Roman-Byzantine tombs in northern Jordan would raise in total U.S.$10–18 million (Rose and Burke 2004:8). The sale of material from BronzeAge tombs would add to this figure. It is important to remember, however, that this is a total figure and not an annual one, so that if the tombs were emptied over a ten-year period, for example, they would generate U.S.$1–2 million worth of artifacts annually. Recent work on St. Lawrence Island has suggested that digging generates U.S.$1.5 million per year for the island, or about U.S.$1,000 per person (Hollowell 2006b:105). These sums are substantial and go a long way to explaining the prevalence of subsistence digging and illicit trade. Nevertheless, though substantial, they are finite, limited by the facts that eventually the sites are worked out and the artifacts are exported. The argument in favor of subsistence digging is one of economic justice, but subsistence digging is not an equitable enterprise, nor is it a...

Share