Keepers of illegal antiquities in Ukraine (English translation)

ISSN 0235-3490. АРХЕОЛОГІЯ, 2005, №3. – С. 91-97.  Я. П. Гершкович Ya. P. Gershkovich (Kyiv, Ukraine) Keepers of illegal antiquities in Ukraine An activity of the private collectors of archaeological items and the question of moral aspect of cooperation with them of professional archaeologists is being examined in this paper. The material for this paper has been collected by the author, basically, during a stay in the USA in 2003 - 2004 in the framework of the W. Fulbright Scientific Exchanges Program. As the majority of the English-language literature devoted to the question is absent in our libraries. I could advise all those who are interested in the problems considered here to use the Internet to obtain the additional information. Key-words for search could be as follows: "illicit antiquities", "сultural heritage", "plundered antiquities", "looting", etc. It is my duty to thank my colleagues Ph. Kohl and Yu. Rassamakin, with whom we frequently discussed this matter in Boston and Kyiv. Having found a concurrence of positions and estimations, we have prepared the common paper to publish “Black Archaeology", Illegal Antiquities. A Problem of Protection of the Archaeological Heritage on the Post-soviet Space. In the same paper, M.D. Sagitova and R.G. Magomedov made the review of the same problem in the Dagestan Republic (Russian Federation). I used some of my observations and conclusions from that paper in the article below. I also humbly thank S.N. Ryzhov for consultation concerning the Trypillya Culture pottery from collection "Platar". At present one can observe in Ukraine an active intervention into the sphere of archaeology of the private collectors proclaiming themselves as admirers, rescuers and keepers of antiquities. They amazingly easily find common language with the frank or latent charlatans. Unburdened by any knowledge and without any doubts these amateurs frequently evaluate and give instructions to representatives, in their definition of "official" or "engaged" science. Attitude of the professional archaeologists towards them ranges from full non-acceptance to appeals for cooperation and compromises in order to get access to their collections. As a whole, expectations prevail for authorities will take a stand on these matters. Meanwhile, these expectations are vain, as events have shown. The wide experience of other countries in solving this issue is almost unknown to us. Collecting of antiquities as a social phenomenon and its underlying principles are not 1 examined sufficiently , as is the case in the West where they have been faced with these problems for a long time In Ukraine as in other former republics of the USSR, the phenomenon has appeared just at the beginning of the 90-s of the last century. This similarity is not caused exclusively by human inquisitiveness and natural aspiration to preserve the historic memory. Both were inherent at the beginning of the 18th century when the archaeology arose and collecting was the only one way to extend knowledge about the past. At that time collecting of antiquities was not a business yet, and dealers in antiquarian goods aspired to receive at least elementary contextual information about objects that had fallen into their hands. Today, 200 years later, situation has changed radically. And it is naiveté if we do not see it, and hypocrisy when we hide it. Archaeological items have become the goods because they are relatively accessible, and their price is very high even if they are not made of precious metals. According to the Interpol, trade in ancient items profit- wise can be compared with arm- or drugs-trade, and it is possible to judge approximately about grand cumulative price of the world archaeological heritage according to the statement of the Lebanese government which, considering the potential income from the tourism, has compared cost of local antiquities with cost of the oil in other Arabian states (Doole, 1999). In such circumstances antiquarianism are increasing exponentially. In 1988 only the American collectors have spent approximately 5 billionUSD for purchase of subjects of the art, 2 billion USD of them - for illicit, looted and false ones. From 1986 to 2000 the price for cultural properties has increased, at least, 5 to 10 times. In the biggest antiquarian market in the USA, in New York, since 1999, the number of clients who spend more than 50 thousandUSD per year has increased, the appearance of the new collectors from Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, Latin America were registered (Doole, 2000 a). Certainly, not everything in this business is criminal, but there is direct connection between the raised prices of its archaeological part and illegal excavations (Nørskov, 2001, p.1; Незаконные раскопки …, 2002, с . 71 – 72). 92 The struggle against "archaeological bandits" is being conducted constantly in many countries of the world, but not always successfully, in particular, because of so-called "gaps" in the international law. One of them is discrepancies in the laws of the property, as for example, in Switzerland, where a purchase of the stolen subjects "in fair intentions" is allowed (Brodie, 2001, p.3). Besides, the structure of delivery of archaeological items onto the market is organized enough and strongly echeloned everywhere. There is a wide network of robbers on its lower levels (they are named "nighthawks" in the USA and the Great Britain, "tombaroli" - in Italy, "huaqueros" - in Spain, "black archaeologists " - in 2 Russia and Ukraine), and on the upper levels the structure is represented by dealers, buyers and collectors who objectively, whether they realize it or not, are the main customers and sponsors for robbers (Renfrew, 1993, р. 16 - 17). The same situation is in Ukraine, so one should not think, that our "black archaeologists" get only moral satisfaction from their "work", and that the traces of a great number of new destructions on the settlements, barrows, and Classical cities are left by inquisitive envoys of the extraterrestrial civilizations. In the light of new economic conditions in Ukraine one can see an unavoidable situation, when some representatives of business have realized the considerable real cost of the antiquities, which could become reliable and favourable investments for their money, and which in certain conditions could help to look nobly in eyes of the society. No wonder that they are interested in painted clay vessels and anthropomorphic figurines of the Trypillya Culture, richly decorated pottery and articles of armoury of the Catacomb Culture, vessels with mysterious signs of the Zrubna Culture. All of them have external and aesthetic qualities that are totally equal to antiquities of Pre - Columbian America, the ancient Near East and Egypt, Aegean, China and India, which traditionally have considerable popularity on all the large world auctions. There are no open auctions of archaeological finds in Ukraine yet. Nevertheless, the collectors have declared themselves organizing public exhibitions and converting their activity to the charity (Киянский, 2001; Веремко, 2001; Осипчук, 2001; Королевский подарок..., 2001). As far as we know, the first events of this type were arranged in 1999 by Joint-Stock Company "Petroimpex" (S. Platonov) and by Joint-Stock bank "Olympic Ukraine" in the Kyiv-Pechersk National Historical - Cultural Preserve. About 500 different items have been displayed including gold and silver ones. Some later similar exhibitions were opened in the National Bank of Ukraine, and in 2003 (under the name “It is for you, Ukraine!") in one of halls of the "Sofia of Kyiv” Historical- Cultural Preserve (collections of S. Platonov, S. Taruta, V. Nechytajlo, A. Polishchuk, V.Horyachuk). All of them were well advertised in the press and on TV, and were visited by President of Ukraine L.D. Kuchma, members of the government and parliament, representatives of the diplomatic corps. The last exhibition "Trypillya Culture in Ukraine" opened in the beginning of 2005, in the "Sofia of Kyiv" Preserve again. The Ukrainian collectors constantly aspire to find arguments to prove the legitimacy of their activity, but for this purpose they should explain, first of all, what are the sources of the received ancient items. Let's have a look, how their explanations are convincing from the point of view and experience of the archaeologist. 3 One may see absence of any information concerning places of disclosure, names of suppliers, circumstances of a purchase or exchange for all subjects displayed on exhibitions (probably, only one exception are bronze items of so-called Lubny treasure, but this raises the question why the condition of the undamaged state strikingly differ one from another (Клочко, 2003, c. 30, upper image). In other words, these items could have been combined either by diggers (robbers) or by collectors, or their advisers. The 10th article of 1970 UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property (additions in 1995 - UNIDROIT) obliges any collector or exhibitor to specify all these data. At the same time collectors announce some items as accidental finds, something like “an old lady has found in her garden”. There are also more fraught situations. For instance, one collector reminds us that in the middle of the 19th century emperor Nikolay І had become interested in the search for ancient treasures and created the State Archaeological Commission. At that time in Crimea, where summer residences of the Russian noblemen were situated, about 170 large archaeological collections were known. Only one of them has been traced. Other 169 have not disappeared but became the goods for sale, purchase and exchange today, and, as a whole, 50 % of the private assemblies are being replenished by poor descendants of the former collectors. There is nothing new in such declarations. The USA dealers also frequently emphasize that plenty of items have been received from other countries long time ago, and it is now impossible to have certificates concerning their origin. Although in circumstances when one or another item might be old family relics, or stolen recently, or a forgery, it should be considered as an illegal item (Brodie, 2001, p. 4). More than 90 % ancient items from Sotheby's and Christie's after the World War II were declared as objects from private collections. Nevertheless, special journalistic investigations of the middle of the 90th years in Italy and India have shown falsity of such statements and initiated the large scandal for the London Sotheby's (Brodie, Gill, 2003, p.32). 93 Our collectors probably taking into account these circumstances prefer to see in the exhibits not archaeological finds, but ordinary antiques. However, there is no secret for anyone that they turn for consultations to archaeologists (see below). The deliberate substitution of concepts shows falsity in the position of collectors but in an accord with understandable motives they are in no hurry to recognize it. In 1992, in Valetta, Malta, 20 states - members of the Council of Europe have signed "The European Convention on Protection of Archaeological Heritage". The concept "an 4 archaeological heritage" was defined, and the parties that have signed this Convention were obliged to arrange an establishment of legislative system of protection of the archaeological sites (Protection, 1992; Cleere, 1993; O'Kееfе, 1993, pp. 407 – 408; Trotzig, 1993). In the Bill of Ukraine, On Protection of Archaeological Heritage of 18.03.2004, in which positions of International Charter on Protection and Use of Archaeological Heritage are taken into account (1990 Lausanne Charter), movable cultural values are considered as objects of an archaeological heritage. The 1970 UNESCO Convention confirms that the cultural property includes all items from archaeological excavations (both ordinary and secret ones) or archaeological finds, and also elements of art, historical, archaeological sites, which have been dismembered. Thus, the renaming of archaeological items into antiquities or antiques (in the end , it is same) does not change the main thing. In the collection of the antique dealer archaeological items stay as they are, though, unfortunately, because of the obscure circumstances of extraction they appreciably lose the scientific value. One can appreciate positively the announced aspiration of collectors to struggle with export of antiquities because this export does exist. In auction house "Ariadna Gallery" in the USA (New York) 27 boxes of the Scythian articles have already been exposed (Михайленко, 2003). In 2000 the custom house of the border check point at Chop (Transcarpathian) has transferred to the National Historical Museum of Ukraine 1500 archaeological items with the total value about 2 million $ (Метелкин, 2002). The beginning of delivery of archaeological material abroad coincides with the sharp reduction of quantity of archaeological items on the large antiquarian markets of Ukraine and is marked by the middle of 90-s. And by strange concurrence the exhibition of private collections, collected amazingly quickly - for 7-10 years, has begun since that time. It is, probably, a unique case in the world practice. Thus, contrary to statements of their owners, we can see not the rescue of archaeological items from export, but just multi –directional attempts at selling . The items (such as Scythian, or Classical ones)whose the country of origin cannot be established precisely (besides Ukraine, it could be Greece, Italy, Turkey or Russia, etc.) are taken abroad, while intact clay potteries of the Trypillya Culture, including the groups located exclusively in territory of Ukraine (for example, Tomashivka, Volodymyrivka, Kasenivka groups) are left inside the country. It has been generally impossible to smuggle out pots as big and massive as are these clay products. And after the ratification of above mentioned the UNESCO Convention of 1970 by the Verhovna Rada of Ukraine should they be revealed in any other country which has signed and ratified this 5 Convention, our state could declare the rights on them and even have them returned . Only the authorities can take a decision in this process. Concerning all arguments of collectors listed above, L. Tanyuk, the Chairman of the Verhovna Rada Commission on the Culture and Spiritual Wealth, said precisely: “the probability of the accidental finds is extremely small, and the majority of conversations about it are fantasy. For some reason they are found "accidentally" by the same circle of persons. And with such frequency of "fortuity" which we can see on the example of S.Platonov's collection, there would be no sites by now, and the population of Ukraine instead of the tillage for ages could gather the jewellery on their fields ” (Танюк, 2003). There is a reason to cite also the opinion of Academician of NAS of Ukraine P.P. Tolochko who as the member of the Verhovna Rada, was engaged in preparation of the Bill On Protection of Archaeological Heritage: “Some people created the demand for antiquities in Ukraine, therefore, a supply arose too. Although the collectors say they do not cooperate with the black archaeologists, and the item gets to them through third people, the network of collector - employer - black archaeologist - worker exists … If the "rescue" of valuables by collectors continues with the same speed, there would be no normal archaeological sites in coming decades in Ukraine; all would been damaged or destroyed” (cite according Соломако, 2003). 94 We should establish a fact that the majority of the items displayed at exhibitions of the Ukrainian collectors originate from illegal excavations, and countless numbers of archaeological sites were destroyed to extract and choose the most favourable goods for sale. Some of items are counterfeits (Трейстер, 2005, c. 105 - 106), but this is not a consolation for us. Thus, no matter what loud and beautiful slogans are produced for such exhibitions, we should consider them the direct evidence of the existence in Ukraine for an advanced and well- developed system of the illegal trade in archaeological items/antiquities. The present situation here once again confirms that the formation of "black archaeology” and the market for buying – selling of the ancient subjects and their collecting are interdependent and are impossible without one another, being components of the combined mechanism. However, unlike the robbers/diggers, the legal status of the dealers, dealers/collectors or collectors (borders between them are extremely transparent) is not determined. It is the evidence of series of unsolved legal aspects of problems of the protection of an archaeological heritage. The licensing of the collection activity is to be considered one of means of such protection. In our opinion, it is unlikely that this will be the effective measure. And here is 6 why. In Greece, the private collecting encouraged and authorized within the limits of the country existed for a long time, recognizing that it rescued valuable antiquities from export. Later, the special research concerning the contents of famous private collections and exhibitions unequivocally showed the irrevocable loss for the science of the whole classes of items of different periods. For example, to supply the marble figurines (idols) of the Bronze Age from Cyclades to the modern private assemblies, it was necessary to destroy 85 % of burial grounds there (Gill, Сhірріndаlе, 1993, pp. 601 - 659). By 2002 in Israel, the only one state of the Near East where there is a licensing of trade in antiquities, 75 dealers have provided total annual turnover in antiquity valued approximately at 5 million $ (Blumt, 2002). 95 % of their goods do have illegal origin, but authority cannot prove it (Doole, 2000 b). Thus, an effective measure can be only the complete interdiction of archaeological collecting resembling the prohibition of the collecting of drugs, radioactive fuel, etc. The problems of the prevention of illegal extortionate excavations and trade in the illegal antiquities have been examined at many scientific conferences and symposiums today. McDonald's Institute for the Archaeological Research in Cambridge (Great Britain) has a special site in the Internet under rather exact name "Culture without context" (<http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/IARC>) where the newest information on the illegal archaeology worldwide is being gathered and analyzed. The Round Table on problems of the robbery of the archaeological sites took place in 2002 in Moscow (Нелегальные раскопки..., 2002, с. 70 - 89). Negative comments about exhibitions of collectors in Kyiv were on the pages of magazine Russian Archaeology (Флеров, 2004, с. 118). It would not be true to say that the Ukrainian archaeologists stay inactive as far as they appear in the media on this matter (Івакін, Климовський, 1993, c. 111 - 115; Гаврилюк, 2003, с. 158 159; Гаврилюк, 2003 а; Гаврилюк и др., 2003, с. 340 - 346; Оленковський, 2004, с. 132; Не стреляйте ..., 2003), N.O.Gavrylyuk and M.P.Tymchenko established a special site in the Internet named "Black" archaeology in Ukraine (<http://archaeonews.iatp.org.ua/blck_ar.htm>), but, all the same, there is an obvious necessity for the intensification of our actions. This is necessary also because of constant intentions of collectors to impose their interpretation of the problems of ancient history. And they do it not quite accidentally. The certain part of their assemblies is represented by the materials of the Trypillya Culture. That is the source of support for the still far from proven interpretation of Trypillya Culture settlements - giants as proto-cities, and the Trypillya Culture as the most ancient civilization in the world. The scientific arguments do not touch them, but with such 7 interpretation, the value of the Trypillya Culture part of their collections increases considerably. In the summer of 2003 in Tal'yanky, on a place of excavation of one of the biggest settlements of the Trypillya Culture, the International conference Trypillya settlements – giants took place. There was no special interest from the side of "fighters" for the Great Trypillya in it. But in the very next year , in January, 2004, with support of the Joint-Stock Company "Petroimpex" (S. Platonov) and "Industrial Union of Donbas " (S. Таruta) in Kyiv “The First World Congress of the Trypillya Civilization” was provided for generously,and Encyclopaedia of the Trypillya Civilization in two volumes with this interpretation and a Catalogue of collections of the Platonovs' and Tarutas' families ("PlaTar") were published. 95 Giving due to efforts of our colleagues who have worked in the preparation of these issues (especially Encyclopaedia), we cannot share, however, their belief about correctness of cooperation with collectors. Many famous world archaeological authorities are against such an alliance (Renfrew, 2000). The experience of the Society for American Archeology (SAA) is interesting. It has developed and accepted in April, 10 of 1996 Principles of Archaeological Ethics. The Principle №3 (Commercialization) is as follows: "The Society for American Archaeology has long recognized that the buying and selling of objects out of archaeological context is contributing to the destruction of the archaeological record on the American continents and around the world. The commercialization of archaeological objects - their use as commodities to be exploited for personal enjoyment or profit - results in the destruction of archaeological sites and of contextual information that is essential to understanding the archaeological record. Archaeologists should therefore carefully weigh the benefits to scholarship of a project against the costs of potentially enhancing the commercial value of archaeological objects. Whenever possible they should discourage, and should themselves avoid, activities that enhance the commercial value of archaeological objects, especially objects that are not curated in public institutions, or readily available for scientific study, public interpretation, and display". (my italics. Ya.H.) (Vitelli, 1996, p.264). Similar Codes of Archaeological Ethics exist already in Canada (Rosenswig, 1997, pp. 99; Canadian..., 1997, pp. 5-6), Australia (Code of Ethics …, 1994, pp. 129), Egypt (<http://www.e-c-h-o.org/documents>), and New Zealand (New Zealand..., 1993, pp. 183 - 184). А. Chase, D. Chase and H. Topsey point out the inadmissibility for archaeologists to give estimates of antiquities of a doubtful origin in their Archaeology and Ethics of Collecting (Chase, Chase, Topsey, 1996, p.31). In the Great Britain the British Academy in 8 1998, and Institute of Archaeology in London in 1999 have accepted decisions where adherence to the principles stated in the 1970 UNESCO Convention (Brodie, 2001, p.18 19) was confirmed. The editors of scientific magazines such as the American Journal of Archeology (Society of American... 1992, pp. 749 - 770) follow them too. In 1986 Code of Professional Ethics of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) (in section 3.2) forbade for museums to receive objects in any case when there are bases to consider that they could be extracted by illegal way or when their owner refuses to inform about circumstances of finds. In 1988 the International Congress of Classical Archaeology in its Berlin Declaration has called to archaeologists not to provide any examination and recommendations to dealers and private collectors. It is obvious that also in Ukraine the necessity of the developing of Code of Archaeological Ethics has arisen. This Code, though it has moral obligations, will give the answer to the question on volume, principles and conditions of cooperation with collectors. Ethics of the archaeologist being widely accepted all over the world is in conflict with the position of authors of the Catalogue of collections Platar. So, V.I. Klochko and A.V. Symonenko, having accused those of their colleagues who do not support such alliance in professional unfitness have declared: "…the moral and professional duty of the archaeologist does not allow him to disregard an antiquity, however it would get to him" (my italics. – Ya. H.)" (Клочко, Симоненко, 2004, с. 6). Nevertheless, the situation as it is seen is much more complicated to give such instructions. First of all, the items do not fall into archaeologist's hands, but stay in the collector's hands; secondly - and it is essential - advisers are hired and paid by them, and should accept corresponding rules of behaviour. Now in this case V.I. Klochko and A.V. Symonenko first made a quite strange definition of the term "artefact", saying without a shadow of doubt that those are "new archaeological finds" (about the valid contents of this term see, for example, Klein, 1978, с. 83 - 85), and then became just another propagandists of the myth without any base, though popular among their patrons, about finding ‘Aratta’ in Ukraine (Клочко, Симоненко, 2004, с. 7). At the end of the 2004 Ukrainian people, having acted against mass falsifications during presidential elections, elected the new president of the country. During the celebrations devoted to the inauguration, the wife of the president was in the dress decorated with gold ancient adornments from S. Platonov's collection, including gold brooch with the relief image of the head of Menada (Платар, 2004, с. 146, 52). Is it possible that the society receives a new signal to attack the archaeological sites? Or has a deliberate discrediting of the new president taken place? As long as the authority in the person of its supreme representatives, as well as society as a whole, do not realize a horror which occurs in Ukraine in sphere of protection 9 of archaeological heritage, invasion of robbers into archaeological sites will continue. Compared to us, they are equipped perfectly, because money for the up-to-date instruments is received from the sale of the stolen property of our society. That is why slogans of exhibitions of the private collections such as "It is for you, Ukraine!" can enrapture only those who are far from understanding of the valid purposes and problems of a modern archaeological science, or those professional archaeologists who do not uphold , at very least, their scientific reputation. 96 Веремко В. Киевский бизнесмен подарил музею бесценную коллекцию // Галiцьки контракти. Український діловий тижневик. - 2001, № 29. Гаврилюк Н.О. Конференція "Illegal archaeology?" // Археологія. – 2003.- №4 Гаврилюк Н.О. Від редакції // Археологічні відкриття в Україні 2001-2002 рр.К., 2003а, Вип. 5. Гаврилюк Н.О., Готун І.А., Жаров Г.В., Цимбаленко І. М. Нищення пам'яток археології Чернігівщини та деякі міркування щодо їх захисту // Археологічні відкриття в Україні 2001-2002 рр.- К., 2003, Вип. 5. Івакін Г.Ю., Климовський С.І. Проблеми охорони археологічних пам'яток Києва // АРОІКС. - 1999, Вип. 3. Киянський Д. Чи бути київському “Лувру”? // Дзеркало тижня. Міждународний суспільно- політичний тижневик. - 2001, №45 (369) (17-23.11, 2001). Клейн Л.С. Археологические источники. – Л., 1978. Клочко В.І. З археологічних матеріалів колекції "ПлаТар" // Памятки України. Науковий часопис. – 2003, №4. Клочко В.И., Симоненко А.В. Вступительная статья // Платар. Колекція предметів старовини родин Платонова і Тарут. Каталог. - К., 2004. Королевский подарок украинского мецената // Корреспондент. Kyiv Post. Украинская сеть новостей. – 2001 (9. 04). Метелкин М. Археологія “чорна” та “біла” // Дзеркало тижня. Міждународний суспільно- політичний тижневик. - 2002, №23 (398), (22 -27.06). Михайленко М. Выкупить золото скифов: мы упустили шанс приобрести на аукционе в США предметы нашего культурного наследия // Киевские ведомости. Ежедневная всеукраинская газета. - 2003, №123 (2928) (10.06.) Не стріляйте в археологів. Бесіда письменника Ю. Олійника з вченими Інституту археології НАН України // Дзеркало тижня. Міждународний суспільнополітичний тижневик. – 2003, №37 (462), (27.09). 10 Незаконные раскопки и археологическое наследие России // РА. – 2002, №4. Оленковський М.П. Чи спроможна Україна зберегти на своїй території всесвітню археологічну спадщину? // Археологія.- 2004, №1. Осипчук И. Свою коллекцию древностей я передал Украине ради создания музея, не уступающему Лувру или Эрмитажу // Факты и комментарии. Ежедневная всеукраинская газета. - 2001 (17. 07). Платар. Колекція предметів старовини родин Платонова і Тарут. Каталог. - К., 2004. Соломако И. Два цвета археологии // Республиканская общественнополитическая газета. - 2003, №20 (93) (19-25.05). Танюк Л. Черно-біла архіархеологія // Дзеркало тижня. Міждународний суспільно- політичний тижневик. - 200З, №438, (5-11.04). Трейстер М. Рецензия на: Е.I.Архипова, М.Ю.Вiдейко, В.I.Клочко, М.Е.Левада, О.В.Симоненко, Р.В.Стоянов, Платар. Колекцiя старожитностей родин Платонових i Тарут. Каталог.- К,.: Укрполiграфмедiа, 2004.-256 С.- Явтушенко I.Г. (Ред.), Шедеври Платар. Колекцiя старожитностей. Фотоальбом. Киïв, - 2004.- 159 С. // Археологія. – 2005, №2. Флеров В.С. Найдено на аукционе "Сhristie". Роль эксперта в торговле древностями // РА. – 2004, №2. Blumt O. The illicit antiquities trade: an analysis of current antiquities looting in Israel // CWC. - 2002, Issue 11. Brodie N. Introduction // Trade on illicit Antiquities: The Destriction of the World's Archaeological Heritage. - Cambridge, 2001. Brodie N., Gill D. Looting: an international view // Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Walnut Creek, 2003. Canadian Archaeological Association: Statement of Principles for Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples // CJA. - 1997, № 21. Chase A. F., Chase D. Z., Topsey H. W. Archaeology and the ethics of collecting // Archaeological Ethics. - Walnut Creek, 1996. Gill D., Сhippindale С. Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladic figures // AJA. – 1993, № 97. Cleere H. Managing the Archaeological Heritage // Antiquity. - 1993, V. 67, № 255. Code of Ethics of the Australian Archaeological Association (Members’ Obligations to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander People) // Aust.A. - 1994, №39. Doole J. Looting in Lebanon // CWC. - 1999, Issue 4. 11 Doole J. Strong antiquities // CWC. - 2000a, Issue 6. Doole J. New Laws in Israel? // CWC. - 2000b, Issue 7. New Zealand Archaeological Association (NZAA). Code of Ethics // ANZ. - 1993, №36. Nørskov V. Greek vases for sale: some statistical evidence // Trade on illicit Antiquites: The Destriction of the World's Archaeological Heritage. –Cambridge, 2001. O’Keefe P.J. The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage // Antiquity. - 1993, № 255. Protection of archaeological heritage: explanatory report on the revised Convention opened for signature on 16 January 1992. Srtasbourg, 1992. Renfrew C. Collectors are the real looters // Archaeology. - 1993, Vol. 46, № 3. Renfrew С. Loot, legimacy and ownership. The ethical crisis in archaeology // Duckworth debates in archaeology. - London, 2000. Rosenswig R. M. Ethics in Canadian Archaeology: An International, Comparative Analysis // CJA. - 1997, №21. Society of American Archaeology (SAA). Editorial Policy // American Antiquity. 1992, № 57. Trotzig G. The new European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage // Antiquity. – 1993, 67. Vitelli K. (ed.). Archaeological Ethics. – Walnut Creek, 1996. 97 Я. П. Гершкович. Хранители нелегальных древностей в Украине. Когда в начале 18 в. археология только зарождалась, коллекционирование было единственным способом получения знаний о прошлом. Сейчас положение кардинально изменилось - археологические предметы стали товаром. По всему миру на нижних ступенях этого бизнеса задействована широкая сеть грабителей, а на верхних - дилеров, скупщиков и коллекционеров. Украина не является исключением. Большая часть экспонатов, представленных на выставках частных коллекций в Украине, или получена из незаконных раскопок, или является фальсификатом. Назрела необходимость разработки Кодекса археологической этики, в котором был бы учтен международный опыт и рекомендации профессиональным археологам не обеспечивать экспертизу и не давать рекомендации дилерам или частным коллекционерам. 12 Ya. P. Gershkovich. Keepers of illegal antiquities in Ukraine. At the beginning of the 18th century, when archaeology was just rising, collecting was the only one way to get the knowledge about the past. The situation has fundamentally changed by now. Archaeological finds are sold and bought these days. There is a wide network of robbers at the lower level of this business, as well as dealers and collectors on the upper one. Ukraine is not an exception. Most of the items displayed at the exhibitions of private collections in Ukraine either come from illegal excavations or occur to be counterfeits. There is an urgent necessity to develop the Code of the Archaeological Ethics taking into account the international experience and to recommend to professional archaeologists not to provide any examination and any recommendations to dealers or private collectors. 13