• 1 Coggins, Clemency C. (1969), «Illicit Traffic of Pre-Columbian Antiquities», Art Journal, 29 (1), (...)

1I would like to start this short essay with a clear statement: the trade in antiquities from Latin America is more often than not illicit. The protective legal regimes of most Latin American countries, which forbid the extraction and export of antiquities and vest ownership with the state, pre-date the flowering of the international market for that material. With very few exceptions, all Latin American antiquities available on the international market were subject to illegal actions at some point in their past. Their ubiquity within auction houses, dealerships, and private and public collections speaks to the destructive nature of the looting and trafficking of cultural objects: evidence of crime is obscured or destroyed along with the original cultural contexts of these pieces. That does not mean that Latin American countries are not the rightful and legal owners of these antiquities, it simply means they cannot prove that they are. Yet the fact remains: this is an illicit trade. There is no legitimate market source of Latin American antiquities. A Latin American antiquity for sale without (and even with) provenance is likely an object of crime. This is no secret, as Latin American antiquities have been at the very core of the public debate about the global illicit trade in antiquities for over half a century1, and those who participate in the market know this. They are sophisticated, well-informed people who are privy to at least the same information about the illicit sources of Latin American antiquities available to archaeologists and law enforcement, if not more. With that in mind, it seems rather paradoxical to say that the people who sell and buy Latin American antiquities do not believe that they are supporting crime with their actions, and that they certainly do not consider themselves to be criminals. How can we account for that?

• 2 Alarid, Leanne F., Vega, Ofelia Lisa (2010), «Identity Construction, Self Perceptions, and Crimina (...)
• 3 Ibid.
• 4 Sutherland, Edwin H. (1949), White Collar Crime, New York, Dreyden.
• 5 Benson, Michael L. (1985), «Denying the Guilty Mind: Accounting for Involvement in White-Collar Cr (...)

2Within criminology, how «criminals» (defined tenuously here as someone who violates the law) view themselves and their own actions is a topic of research and debate. Some people who commit crimes certainly do consider themselves to be «criminals», often in situations where they have prior convictions or are involved in activities that are clearly labelled as criminal by societal norms, like selling drugs2. However, people who have a stronger «master identity» as something else (e.g. as a professional or as a mother) are less likely to see themselves as criminal3, even in situations where their actions have resulted in their incarceration. By and large, criminological research has shown that people who commit so-called white collar crime, «crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of [their] occupation4», do not consider themselves to be criminals5.

• 6 Mackenzie, Simon (2006), «Psychosocial Balance Sheets: Illicit Purchase Decisions in the Antiquiti (...)
• 7 Mackenzie, Simon, Yates, Donna (2016b), «What Is Grey about the “Grey Market” in Antiquities», in (...)

3Dealers and collectors of Latin American antiquities are, by definition, white collar actors. It would be a logical next step to say that people in those groups who knowingly engage with the illicit trade are white collar criminals who are unlikely to self-define as such and are equally unlikely to see their actions as crimes. This leaves us with more questions than answers. The question of how these white collar actors justify their actions and classify themselves as non-criminals is covered elsewhere6. For the remainder of this essay, I am going to consider not how they do this, but one possible reason why. Moving away from classic ideas of white collar crime as being financially motivated, I want to consider the development of human/object relationships as a motivating factor for engagement in the illicit market for Latin American antiquities, and indeed in the grey market7 for antiquities more generally.

• 8 Yates, Donna (2015), Motunui Panels, Trafficking Culture Encyclopedia, [available online: https:// (...)

5Take for example an essay written by George Ortiz, a Switzerland-based Bolivian heir to a tin fortune who amassed an eclectic collection of antiquities, some of which were unquestionably looted and trafficked8:

• 10 First at the TEFAF art fair in Maastricht, and then, due to changes in the art market in response (...)

7In many ways, then, the movements of Latin American antiquities between market actors and participants, and their circulation throughout the world can be characterised as human/object relationship development and human/object relationship maintenance. Observational research focused on antiquities, particularly Latin American antiquities, that I conducted in physical and digital European art market settings in 202010 reveals a marketplace designed to support the building of relationships between human and objects. Within the physical space of the art fair, for example, dealers of antiquities present their products in manufactured settings that mimic those where potential buyers would expect to encounter the objects. The spaces are temple-like, church-like, tomb-like, or (as in most cases) museum-like with antiquities presented in a decontextualised manner, on pedestals, with information cards attached. Yet, unlike in a museum where visitors are held back by guard rails, glass cases, and attentive security guards, potential buyers at the art fair are able to cross those traditional boundaries and to engage in seemingly-transgressive behaviour such as touching the antiquities, which are almost all displayed without glass.

• 11 Which is, itself, an emotionally charged experience that forms the foundation of human/object rela (...)

10Take, for instance, the presentation of Latin American antiquities at dealer booths during the 2020 TEFAF art fair, held in Maastricht in early 2020 but eventually closed early due to the coronavirus epidemic. Latin American antiquities were presented entirely without glass barriers, without alarm systems, and with only the lightest monitoring from dealership employees. In one booth, I was left alone for over ten minutes with a treasure trove of unprotected South American goldwork, as the lone dealership employee at the booth disappeared behind a closed door. The level of trust was jarring and was not something I had experienced in any other setting where people and antiquities meet, except for during the process of archaeological discovery11. In instances where I showed a clear interest in an object, the initial spark of a budding relationship, dealership employees were on hand to encourage bonding. As I lingered in front of a lidded Maya vessel, dramatically lit within a dark tomb- or temple-like atmosphere and behind no glass, an employee approached, commented on the beauty of the piece, and asked if they could help me further. I asked how the lid was attached, and in response the employee picked up the vessel, removed the lid, and offered both to me for a «look», which would inevitably be a look with my hands. At another booth, in front of a large gold Moche ornament decorated with a frog motif, the dealership employee (who did eventually reappear from behind the door) offered to show me the back of the piece and demonstrated how it was meant to spin and rattle. In both cases I identified myself as a researcher after being approached and declined to touch the objects, but I could certainly feel the beginnings of relationships forming between myself and those antiquities. Indeed, as I write, I can remember both the vessel and the ornament in great detail, but can remember nothing at all that was offered for sale alongside them. As I said previously, people in relationships do strange things, and within the context of an intensely experienced human/object relationship, people who do not consider themselves to be criminals may break wider societal rules. But what do objects in relationships do?

• 12 Newman, Oscar (1973), Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City, London, Architectur (...)
• 13 Kelling, George L., Wilson, James Q. (1982), «Broken Windows. The Police and Neighborhood Safety», (...)

11That objects have agency (or are, at least, agentic) is not a particularly controversial assertion within heritage and museum studies or within areas of sociological and anthropological research. Yet consideration of the role that objects play in the formulation and maintenance of criminal networks lies outside the boundaries of current criminological research. Where criminology has moved beyond purely human-centred studies, the focus has been on the effect of the built environment on human behaviour, such as Newman’s idea of «defensible space»12 or “broken windows theory”13. These constructions see criminals as reacting to physical factors in their surroundings, factors that are ultimately caused by other humans. Objects with human-like needs begging to be stolen have no place in these models. There is little room for human/object relationships and certainly little room for conceptions of object agency as being motivating factors for criminal acts. Can objects make people commit crimes? That we do not yet know, but the question is at the centre of my current research on the illicit trade in Latin American antiquities.