Peru has asked French authorities to stop an auction of Peruvian artifacts that left the country years ago. Sotheby's used to auction off such material in New York, but U.S. import restrictions on pre-Colombian art has driven that business overseas.
President Sarkozy made a concerted effort to increase France's share of the auction business. Perhaps, the Peruvian Government is hoping that France's current "soak the rich" Socialists will be more amenable to repatriation demands, however stale the claim.
Whether French authorities take the Peruvian claim seriously or not, all this is just more evidence that museums and others were snookered into accepting a 1970 date for acquisitions of artifacts. If they thought such a concession would quiet repatriation demands, they were very, very wrong. If anything, such concessions have only encouraged further demands-- the slippery slope rule applies yet again.
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Cambodian Cultural Property Fracas Again Shows Appeasment Leads to Escalating Demands
Leaving aside the merits of Cambodia's claim to a valuable statue that was to be auctioned off at Sotheby's, this latest fracas in the cultural property wars again suggests appeasing the archaeological lobby does little but encourage escalating demands. For more, see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/arts/design/sothebys-caught-in-dispute-over-prized-cambodian-statue.html
If Sotheby�s thought hiring a former prosecutor who has developed strong contacts with the archaeological community would win friends and influence people within the archaeological community, it was wrong.
Also, if anyone thinks 1970 provides a safer harbor to repatriation claims, the archaeological lobby's recourse to a 1925 law to press this claim also suggests that 1970 may not be the "safe harbor" date the archaeological community initially claimed as well.
Yes, appeasement leads to little but escalating demands for more.
If Sotheby�s thought hiring a former prosecutor who has developed strong contacts with the archaeological community would win friends and influence people within the archaeological community, it was wrong.
Also, if anyone thinks 1970 provides a safer harbor to repatriation claims, the archaeological lobby's recourse to a 1925 law to press this claim also suggests that 1970 may not be the "safe harbor" date the archaeological community initially claimed as well.
Yes, appeasement leads to little but escalating demands for more.
Facebook Campaign to Repatriate de Valette's Sword-- But to Where?
A Maltese history buff has started a Facebook campaign to seek the return of de Valette's ceremonial sword from France to Malta. See
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110824/local/Facebook-campaign-for-return-of-de-Valette-s-sword.381580
The sword has an interesting history. As the article explains,
"The sword and a matching dagger had been given to the Grand Master by the Holy Roman Emperor Philippe II of Spain in 1565 [better known here for his effort to invade England], to mark the Order�s victory in the Great Siege in the same year, which had led to the retreat of the Ottoman forces.
In 1798, while on his way to Egypt, Napoleon landed in Malta. He captured the islands with the loss of only three Frenchmen. The knights had lost their fighting spirit and although the Maltese forces offered to resist the occupation, Grand Master Ferdinand Von Hompesch surrendered.
In his Facebook page, Bring Back The Sword of La Valette to Malta, Mr Bugeja says: 'This sword was unfortunately taken from us by Napoleon�s soldiers when they invaded Malta and is now on display in the Louvre Museum in Paris. This sword rightfully belongs to the Maltese people and should be in a Maltese museum and not in Paris.'"
But, even if the French would accede to such a request, should the de Valette sword really be sent back to Malta? Or, is its proper place at the headquarters of de Valette's "Order of Malta" in Rome, particularly when his knights continue to maintain many of the trappings of a sovereignty, including diplomatic relations, coins, stamps and even an "air force." See http://www.orderofmalta.org/the-order-and-its-institutions/310/the-knights-of-malta/?lang=en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta
Yet another conundrum the comes with the repatriationist territory.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110824/local/Facebook-campaign-for-return-of-de-Valette-s-sword.381580
The sword has an interesting history. As the article explains,
"The sword and a matching dagger had been given to the Grand Master by the Holy Roman Emperor Philippe II of Spain in 1565 [better known here for his effort to invade England], to mark the Order�s victory in the Great Siege in the same year, which had led to the retreat of the Ottoman forces.
In 1798, while on his way to Egypt, Napoleon landed in Malta. He captured the islands with the loss of only three Frenchmen. The knights had lost their fighting spirit and although the Maltese forces offered to resist the occupation, Grand Master Ferdinand Von Hompesch surrendered.
In his Facebook page, Bring Back The Sword of La Valette to Malta, Mr Bugeja says: 'This sword was unfortunately taken from us by Napoleon�s soldiers when they invaded Malta and is now on display in the Louvre Museum in Paris. This sword rightfully belongs to the Maltese people and should be in a Maltese museum and not in Paris.'"
But, even if the French would accede to such a request, should the de Valette sword really be sent back to Malta? Or, is its proper place at the headquarters of de Valette's "Order of Malta" in Rome, particularly when his knights continue to maintain many of the trappings of a sovereignty, including diplomatic relations, coins, stamps and even an "air force." See http://www.orderofmalta.org/the-order-and-its-institutions/310/the-knights-of-malta/?lang=en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta
Yet another conundrum the comes with the repatriationist territory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)