By Hannah Stengler
For the past few years, the subject of unprovenanced items has been widely discussed within the AMNE department. An unprovenanced item is one which has not been given a context, its original location and use unknown. This can cause problems in studying an object because its context, where it was found in relation to antiquity, would lend to ideas of what it was most likely used for, technology used in the object’s construction, where materials used were from, etc. This issue is made even more palpable by the UNESCO 1970 convention.
In 1970, UNESCO held a Convention in order to deal with the illegal import and export of cultural property from its original nation. It was declared that importing or exporting cultural items or materials from its original nation State after 1970 is illicit. However, all items acquired before 1970 are allowed to remain where they are. This was an effort to curb the selling of cultural items in markets and elsewhere and thus slow down illegal looting. Now, how this convention was received and interpreted by different countries varies. The United States and Canada were the first to implement the 1970 convention into their own laws, however, it is implemented in slightly different ways. The United States, which gave its consent to ratification in 1972, did not implement that ratification until 1983. Canada accepted the Convention and enacted it in the Cultural Property Implementation Act in 1978. This act states that “it is illegal to import into Canada any foreign cultural property that has been illegally exported from that reciprocating State” (6). In the event that a cultural object were to be recovered, the government of the reciprocating State must request recovery in writing to the Canadian Minister. After this initial contact, the Attorney General of Canada may call for action of recovery in which it must be ordered in a court. If cultural materials are deemed illegally exported after 1978 when the act was created and in violation of Canada’s import controls, then cultural materials must be returned (7). Lastly, if said cultural materials were obtained by a bona fide purchaser, someone who purchased the item with no knowledge of its acquisition and provenance, then that purchaser, institution or otherwise must be compensated with an amount determined by the court and paid by the nation state which requested recovery. While some have found loopholes in this act, an item unable to be proven as being taken illegally from a country, it has also worked quite well in other cases. According to an Expert Report by Patty Gerstenblith published in 2012, over 21,000 cultural objects have been returned to countries such as Bolivia, Bulgaria, Colombia, Egypt, Mexico, Peru, and the Syrian Arab Republic (8).
Now that we have quickly reviewed both the UNESCO Convention and current federal legislation which has implemented the convention in Canada, how does an academic institution such as UBC create a Code Ethics implementing the Convention, federal legislation, and Archaeological ethics? Currently, the department of Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern studies is developing such a Code of Ethics, meant to outline how the department should deal with donated items which may be unprovenanced and/or most likely exported from its original nation state after the 1970 Convention.
Reference
General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Convention on the means of prohibiting and of ownership of cultural property, preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. Paris, France: UNESDOC Digital Library, 14 November 1970.