APPENDIX 5
Memorandum submitted by the Vice President
of the Royal Archaeological Institute
I have been asked to reply on behalf of the
Royal Archaeological Institute to your letter of 10 February concerning
the Select Committee's inquiry into "Cultural Property: Return
and Illicit Trade".
This is clearly an important subject for the
archaeological community and one over which opinions are deeply
divided. Without having consulted our members, it would be inappropriate
for the Institute to offer evidence on all the issues raised in
your Press Notice. We would, however, like to make two points
which seem central to the debate.
First, we recognise the prime importance of
artefacts (archaeological and art objects) in the definition of
group identities amongst all peoples of the world. We therefore
believe in principle that effective international conventions
are essential in balancing the legitimate interests of the cultures
which produced objects with those of individuals and museums which
now hold them. We are therefore disappointed with the Secretary
of State's recent announcement that the UK will not ratify the
1970 UNESCO Convention which has now been ratified by others,
like the USA, who share similar interests to those of the UK.
Second, we express concern over recent cases
in which archaeological sites in the UK have been despoiled by
treasure hunters, and cultural artefacts dispersed on the international
market. Whilst we warmly welcome the DCMS initiative which supports
the recording by museums of material found by legitimate metal-detector
users, there remains a problem with a tiny majority who use metal-detectors
to supply objects to the market rather than to discover about
our common past. The scale of this problem is very difficult to
estimate but a series of examples have come to light, including
that recently documented in I.M. Stead's book, The Salisbury
Hoard. The worst example known to me is undoubtedly the destruction
of the Iron Age temple at Warnborough in Surrey. Enormous numbers
of Iron Age coins from this site were illicitly exported and access
to important cultural information has thus been denied to the
people of the UK. This example illustrates the way in which the
illicit robbing of sites and trading in antiquities impoverishes
the cultural life of the people of the UK and reinforces the view
that international collaboration is essential to protect our interests
as well as those of other states. In these cases, self-regulation
by dealers is evidently not working to protect the citizens' common
interest in their cultural heritage.
I trust these comments will be useful to your
Committee.
March 2000
| 
