As will become more apparent from my upcoming summary of its public session on Chinese import restrictions, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee appears to have devolved into little more than a complaints bureau for museums and archaeologists with gripes about a source country�s compliance with promises made to these groups in order to secure a MOU with the United States. Import restrictions associated with those MOUs, of course, �stick it� to collectors and the small businesses of the coin and antiquities trade all in the name of �protecting archaeological sites.� But what is really ridiculous this time around is that the EXACT SAME artifacts that Americans are no longer free to import are openly available for sale on Chinese markets, and in immense quantities that dwarf any market here.
It was not supposed to be that way. Instead, CPAC was supposed to provide useful advice to the executive branch about protecting both foreign archaeological contexts and protecting US based business and cultural interests.
What happened? First, Senator Moynihan, who ensured that the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act reflected this balance, retired from the Senate. And then over time, the State Department chipped away at the considerable substantive and procedural constraints found in the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, going so far as to ignore CPAC�s recommendations that there should be no import restrictions on artifacts as common as historical coins and then misleading Congress and the public about it. Most recently, CPAC has been packed with archaeological supporters, including in slots reserved for the public. No wonder CPAC has become little more than a complaints bureau and rubber stamp for the State Department�s prejudged decision-making favoring the interests of foreign cultural bureaucracies and their allies in the archaeological and museum communities.
Showing posts with label Museums. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Museums. Show all posts
Just Say No
Hugh Eakin has written a thoughtful piece about the American museum community's capitulation to ever escalating repatriation demands. Museum trustees have a fiduciary duty to protect their collections from legally deficient claims, but that seems to not be much of a consideration in the face of bad press ginned up by the archaeological lobby and sympathetic journalists aligned with the cultural bureaucracies in places like Greece and Italy.
Eakin rightly notes that repatriation of artifacts that left their supposed countries of origin decades ago does nothing to protect archaeological sites from any current looting. I would add all the hype about repatriation is in fact a diversion from addressing the problems at the source by tackling over-regulation, choking bureaucracy, under-funding and endemic corruption in places like Greece and Italy.
Perhaps if museums just said no to repatriation claims they might actually encourage some rational discussion of the real issues facing preservation of artifacts from the past. Any such discussion should start with some recognition that foreign countries can't possibly preserve, study and display all the artifacts they lay claim to, and protecting artifacts rather than bureaucrats should be the first priority.
Eakin rightly notes that repatriation of artifacts that left their supposed countries of origin decades ago does nothing to protect archaeological sites from any current looting. I would add all the hype about repatriation is in fact a diversion from addressing the problems at the source by tackling over-regulation, choking bureaucracy, under-funding and endemic corruption in places like Greece and Italy.
Perhaps if museums just said no to repatriation claims they might actually encourage some rational discussion of the real issues facing preservation of artifacts from the past. Any such discussion should start with some recognition that foreign countries can't possibly preserve, study and display all the artifacts they lay claim to, and protecting artifacts rather than bureaucrats should be the first priority.
Nanny State Empowered to Regulate Hemingway's Cats
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision allowing the Department of Agriculture to regulate how the Hemingway Museum treats the descendants of Hemingway's cats that live on the property. In so doing, the Court concluded that the Museum met the definition of an an animal exhibitor and that agency regulations and advertisements featuring the cats were enough to provide the necessary nexus to interstate commerce. Now, the DOA can force the Hemingway Museum to cage the cats individually at night, to construct a higher electrified fence or to hire a night watchman, and to build additional cat resting areas. As with coin collecting, even if the Government has the right to regulate something, one can still question its stupidity in doing so. Perhaps the Supreme Court might consider taking both the Hemingway cat case and ACCG coin case. Each would present a good opportunity for the Court to consider Government overreach at its most ridiculous.
More Criticism for Turkey's Repatriation Claims
The the Guardian has now joined the chorus of criticism for Turkey's recent over broad repatriation claims. As the article notes,
The Turkish economy has come down from the vertiginous heights of 2010 and 2011, when annual growth exceeded 8%, but the country remains one of the only economic winners of the past few years � Turkey is ready to play in the big time. It's already at the top table of geopolitics (the G20) and defense (Nato). Its failure to get into the EU now looks like a blessing in disguise. Its retaliation against Syria this past week marks not only its military might, but also US and EU dependence on Turkey in a region changing too fast for western diplomats to handle. And now, naturally, Turkey wants to make their mark in the cultural sphere as well.
"Artifacts have souls and historical memories," according to Ertugrul Gunay, Turkey's pugnacious culture minister. "When they are repatriated to their countries, the balance of nature will be restored."
That nationalistic statement puts Turkey in the vanguard of a troubling tendency, one seen everywhere from Israel to China: that the nation state has an infinite claim to a cultural heritage that may date back thousands of years before the state's foundation. Gunay's appeal to the "balance of nature" is telling. He conceives of the nation state as something organic, an unchanging territorial bond, rather than a relatively recent phenomenon in world history.
It's worth recalling that the Turks, or at least their historical ancestors, were involved in the hottest cultural property dispute of them all. The tussle over the Elgin Marbles, in the British Museum, is usually seen as an Anglo-Greek affair. But of course, it was the Ottoman Empire that took Elgin's money, and it's Ottoman documents that, so say the Brits, prove the legality of Elgin's "purchase" (more like bribe).
But that case only highlights that when it comes to cultural restitution, national boundaries are not very helpful guides. Cultures are not ahistorical and immutable. They change all the time. And they certainly don't line up easily with the borders on our maps, to say nothing of the governments that delimit them.
Despite these sentiments against the repatriation of artifacts that left Turkey before 1970, the article expresses support for the MET's decision to repatriate the so-called Lydian hoard, despite the fact that far fewer individuals have seen the artifacts in a small provincial museum in Turkey than could have seen them at the MET. The article fails to mention that some of the major pieces from this collection were evidently stolen from the Turkish museum and replaced with fakes. Perhaps, where the artifacts can be best be curated, preserved and displayed should also be considered.
The Turkish economy has come down from the vertiginous heights of 2010 and 2011, when annual growth exceeded 8%, but the country remains one of the only economic winners of the past few years � Turkey is ready to play in the big time. It's already at the top table of geopolitics (the G20) and defense (Nato). Its failure to get into the EU now looks like a blessing in disguise. Its retaliation against Syria this past week marks not only its military might, but also US and EU dependence on Turkey in a region changing too fast for western diplomats to handle. And now, naturally, Turkey wants to make their mark in the cultural sphere as well.
"Artifacts have souls and historical memories," according to Ertugrul Gunay, Turkey's pugnacious culture minister. "When they are repatriated to their countries, the balance of nature will be restored."
That nationalistic statement puts Turkey in the vanguard of a troubling tendency, one seen everywhere from Israel to China: that the nation state has an infinite claim to a cultural heritage that may date back thousands of years before the state's foundation. Gunay's appeal to the "balance of nature" is telling. He conceives of the nation state as something organic, an unchanging territorial bond, rather than a relatively recent phenomenon in world history.
It's worth recalling that the Turks, or at least their historical ancestors, were involved in the hottest cultural property dispute of them all. The tussle over the Elgin Marbles, in the British Museum, is usually seen as an Anglo-Greek affair. But of course, it was the Ottoman Empire that took Elgin's money, and it's Ottoman documents that, so say the Brits, prove the legality of Elgin's "purchase" (more like bribe).
But that case only highlights that when it comes to cultural restitution, national boundaries are not very helpful guides. Cultures are not ahistorical and immutable. They change all the time. And they certainly don't line up easily with the borders on our maps, to say nothing of the governments that delimit them.
Despite these sentiments against the repatriation of artifacts that left Turkey before 1970, the article expresses support for the MET's decision to repatriate the so-called Lydian hoard, despite the fact that far fewer individuals have seen the artifacts in a small provincial museum in Turkey than could have seen them at the MET. The article fails to mention that some of the major pieces from this collection were evidently stolen from the Turkish museum and replaced with fakes. Perhaps, where the artifacts can be best be curated, preserved and displayed should also be considered.
Should the Shultz Conviction Be Vacated?
In order to convict Fred Shultz of theft of Egyptian cultural property, the Government put on testimony that Egyptian Law 117 of 1983 unequivocally asserted state ownership of all antiquities and that private ownership, possession and disposal of such antiquities was prohibited. See United States v. Shultz, 178 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Now that the Mubarak regime has fallen, however, an Egyptian academic has asserted that Mubarak, along with his predecessors, gave antiquities from the Egyptian museum away as gifts. Arguably then, because Fred Shultz's conviction was based on incomplete-- if not false testimony-- from Egyptian officials, in the interests of justice it should be vacated.
Interestingly, while Egyptian cultural authorities deny artifacts were gifted by President Mubarak, they do admit that antiquities were gifted before that time.
If so, shouldn't this news also support the dismissal of the Government's case against SLAM because it indeed shows the possibility that artifacts owned by the Egyptian government were gifted in the past?
Now that the Mubarak regime has fallen, however, an Egyptian academic has asserted that Mubarak, along with his predecessors, gave antiquities from the Egyptian museum away as gifts. Arguably then, because Fred Shultz's conviction was based on incomplete-- if not false testimony-- from Egyptian officials, in the interests of justice it should be vacated.
Interestingly, while Egyptian cultural authorities deny artifacts were gifted by President Mubarak, they do admit that antiquities were gifted before that time.
If so, shouldn't this news also support the dismissal of the Government's case against SLAM because it indeed shows the possibility that artifacts owned by the Egyptian government were gifted in the past?
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Opens New Ancient Coin Exhibit
The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, has opened our nation's only permanent exhibition space for ancient coins in a US art museum. There are other more or less permanent displays of ancient coins at other art museums, but nothing of a similar scale.
Kudos to the MFA for exhibiting its fine collection of ancient coins for the public. For more, see here.
Kudos to the MFA for exhibiting its fine collection of ancient coins for the public. For more, see here.
Principle or Self-Preservation?
The archaeological lobby will no doubt pitch the Penn Museum's decision to repatriate ancient jewelry it purchased back in 1966 (well before the 1970 UNESCO Convention) to Turkey as a matter of principle. However, given Turkey's hard ball tactics against German archaeologists at Troy, did preservation of digging rights and all that means for U. Penn archaeologists' careers also enter the picture?
NYT on Orphan Artifacts
The New York Times has published an article on so-called orphan artifacts without the long collection histories increasingly required by museums and high end auction houses based on pressure from the archaeological community.
Given all their finger wagging, the New York Times should also have queried archaeologists about the quality of the record keeping on the millions of artifacts in the inventories of archaeological digs and source country museums around the world.
Given all their finger wagging, the New York Times should also have queried archaeologists about the quality of the record keeping on the millions of artifacts in the inventories of archaeological digs and source country museums around the world.
Europe Turns to Corporate Sponsors for Cultural Heritage
Purists are agast, but financial realities have caused cash strapped countries like Italy to turn to corporate sponsors to save crumbling cultural sites.
Hopefully, the same countries will next work on deaccessioning duplicates they have no funds to adequately care for anyway.
Hopefully, the same countries will next work on deaccessioning duplicates they have no funds to adequately care for anyway.
Slippery Slope
Cambodian cultural bureaucrats, no doubt emboldened by the US Government's case against Sotheby's, have now set their sights on more Cambodian statuary that has been on display at the MET for years. See
The statuary in question apparently arrived in the US years before import restrictions on undocumented Cambodian artifacts were imposed. Moreover, unlike the Sotheby's case, there does not appear to be any hard evidence that the statuary came from a specific site. Accordingly, at this point any Cambodian claims would seem to be based on little more than speculation and a cultural nationalist view that anything of Cambodian manufacture "belongs" to the modern nation state.
Cultural Nationalism Bites German Archaeologists
American archaeologists have been generally supportive of the repatriation efforts of countries like Egypt, Turkey, Greece and Italy. Although they may claim that they are disinterested experts that only support repatriation for moral reasons, the fact is their careers may very well depend on excavation permits issued by the cultural bureaucracies of these same countries.
But now the same cultural nationalism that has motivated Turkey's recent repatriation claims appears to have led the Turkish cultural bureaucracy to force German archaeologists out from excavations at Troy. See http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/german-team-leaves-ancient-site.aspx?pageID=238&nID=21959&NewsCatID=375 Although the above article points to "financial problems" as the reason German archaeologists are leaving the site, it also suggests that Turkey ultimately wants to replace German archaeologists with Turkish ones. Moreover, other sources suggest that move is part of a larger dispute between German state museums and Turkey over repatriation demands for artifacts in their collections. See http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20110224-33323.html
Indeed, as quoted in the above article, a Turkish minister has stated quite bluntly, "Turkey has new universities, new archaeological institutes, not to mention engaged and successful archaeologists....When we don't see the cooperation we hope for in this area, then we won't hesitate to transfer digs to our own universities."
For now, American archaeologists' careers at Troy and other Turkish sites appear safe. But one can only imagine that Turkish authorities expect unqualified support from American archaeologists for their recent repatriation claims against US Museums. See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/03/30/scoop-turkey-asks-getty-met-cleveland-and-dumbarton-oaks-to-return-dozens-of-antiquities/
And what of the 1970 UNESCO benchmark that the AIA hoodwinked American museums into accepting in order to buy peace? That "safe harbor" has evidently suddenly become all but forgotten given what one reads about Turkey's claims in the archaeological blogosphere.
But now the same cultural nationalism that has motivated Turkey's recent repatriation claims appears to have led the Turkish cultural bureaucracy to force German archaeologists out from excavations at Troy. See http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/german-team-leaves-ancient-site.aspx?pageID=238&nID=21959&NewsCatID=375 Although the above article points to "financial problems" as the reason German archaeologists are leaving the site, it also suggests that Turkey ultimately wants to replace German archaeologists with Turkish ones. Moreover, other sources suggest that move is part of a larger dispute between German state museums and Turkey over repatriation demands for artifacts in their collections. See http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20110224-33323.html
Indeed, as quoted in the above article, a Turkish minister has stated quite bluntly, "Turkey has new universities, new archaeological institutes, not to mention engaged and successful archaeologists....When we don't see the cooperation we hope for in this area, then we won't hesitate to transfer digs to our own universities."
For now, American archaeologists' careers at Troy and other Turkish sites appear safe. But one can only imagine that Turkish authorities expect unqualified support from American archaeologists for their recent repatriation claims against US Museums. See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/03/30/scoop-turkey-asks-getty-met-cleveland-and-dumbarton-oaks-to-return-dozens-of-antiquities/
And what of the 1970 UNESCO benchmark that the AIA hoodwinked American museums into accepting in order to buy peace? That "safe harbor" has evidently suddenly become all but forgotten given what one reads about Turkey's claims in the archaeological blogosphere.
Cooperation Fails to End Confrontation
For more evidence that American Museums' efforts to cooperate with the cultural bureaucracies of source countries like Italy has not bought them the peace that was promised, read Jason Felch's blog about the latest efforts to send the "Getty Bronze" to Italy. See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/05/04/the-gettys-bronze-italian-court-upholds-order-to-seize-a-getty-masterpiece/
He states,
Since 2005, the Getty has voluntarily returned 49 antiquities in its collection, acknowledging they were the product of illegal excavations and had been smuggled out of their country of origin. Hundreds of other objects were returned by other American dealers, collectors and museums. In the wake of those returns, several American museums struck cooperative deals with Italy and Greece that allow for long-term loans of ancient art.
But such agreements have not shielded American museums from further claims that ancient art in their display cases are the product of a black market responsible for the destruction of archaeological sites around the world. In March, Turkish officials revealed they were seeking the return of dozens of allegedly looted antiquities from the Getty, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Cleveland Museum of Art and Harvard�s Dumbarton Oaks.
It's high time for American Museums to rethink their efforts to appease source countries and the AIA. Such appeasement does little in the end, but encourage other, ever more aggressive claims.
He states,
Since 2005, the Getty has voluntarily returned 49 antiquities in its collection, acknowledging they were the product of illegal excavations and had been smuggled out of their country of origin. Hundreds of other objects were returned by other American dealers, collectors and museums. In the wake of those returns, several American museums struck cooperative deals with Italy and Greece that allow for long-term loans of ancient art.
But such agreements have not shielded American museums from further claims that ancient art in their display cases are the product of a black market responsible for the destruction of archaeological sites around the world. In March, Turkish officials revealed they were seeking the return of dozens of allegedly looted antiquities from the Getty, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Cleveland Museum of Art and Harvard�s Dumbarton Oaks.
It's high time for American Museums to rethink their efforts to appease source countries and the AIA. Such appeasement does little in the end, but encourage other, ever more aggressive claims.
The Future of the Past - Collecting Ancient Art in the 21st Century
The transcript of the program, The Future of the Past - Collecting Ancient Art in the 21st Century, has been posted here: http://www.cprinst.org/lecture-services/the-future-of-the-past---collecting-ancient-art-in-the-21st-century
The program sponsored by The Asia Society and the American Committee for Cultural Policy largely focuses on Asian Art, but in so doing, raises serious concerns about how the United States Department of State and US Customs makes and enforces import restrictions on cultural goods. Kate Fitz Gibbon, a former CPAC member who now practices as an attorney in New Mexico, set the tone of the event:
We had recently very dramatic, highly publicized raids of California museums accusing them back in 2008 of accepting donations of so-called stolen art from Thailand. These made the front pages for weeks, though it later turned out that bad law and bad facts resulted in a lot of dropped cases.
Other cases that never make the paper come as unpleasant surprise to ordinary folks. An elderly lady from Los Angeles puts some ceramics that she bought at a flea market up for sale on the internet, and then finds four Homeland Security agents on her doorstep. They have a letter from the Minister of Culture of Mali claiming her artifacts were stolen.
A probate lawyer in Albuquerque calls US Customs when he discovers some Pre-Columbian art in an estate. "Any problem?" He asks. "No problem," they say, "it's all stolen. Agents will be by to collect it."
These kinds of actions don�t reach the papers. Most of the time the people involved don�t even realize they have been the victim of a misinformed or overzealous agent, but if we allow a declaration of blanket ownership by a source country to trigger a violation of our National Stolen Property Act, and we assume that lack of documentation is proof of guilt, then we have an end to art collecting, sooner rather than later.
When art becomes stolen through an administrative declaration, a flourish of the pen, then all art collecting is at risk. This applies not only to antiquities but to the myriad of other objects that are claimed as national cultural heritage in many countries: photographs, paintings, sculpture, documents, coins, textiles and costumes. We'll be hearing later today about the Association of Art Museum Directors' decision not to purchase or accept for donation artworks that cannot be proven to have come into the United States before 1970. To my mind this rule is a self-administered slow poison, completely illogical and not required under any law.
There are already hundreds of thousands of objects, mostly minor, that cannot be donated under these rules. In another ten years, there will be many thousands more as owners pass away.
If art collecting is no longer honored, then the benefits to institutions of art collecting will end. If institutions aren't exciting places for collectors, collectors will stop supporting institutions. Archeology, which is supported by this enthusiasm and by the museum system, will suffer in turn.
This should be sobering stuff for anyone interested in the preservation of the past.
The program sponsored by The Asia Society and the American Committee for Cultural Policy largely focuses on Asian Art, but in so doing, raises serious concerns about how the United States Department of State and US Customs makes and enforces import restrictions on cultural goods. Kate Fitz Gibbon, a former CPAC member who now practices as an attorney in New Mexico, set the tone of the event:
We had recently very dramatic, highly publicized raids of California museums accusing them back in 2008 of accepting donations of so-called stolen art from Thailand. These made the front pages for weeks, though it later turned out that bad law and bad facts resulted in a lot of dropped cases.
Other cases that never make the paper come as unpleasant surprise to ordinary folks. An elderly lady from Los Angeles puts some ceramics that she bought at a flea market up for sale on the internet, and then finds four Homeland Security agents on her doorstep. They have a letter from the Minister of Culture of Mali claiming her artifacts were stolen.
A probate lawyer in Albuquerque calls US Customs when he discovers some Pre-Columbian art in an estate. "Any problem?" He asks. "No problem," they say, "it's all stolen. Agents will be by to collect it."
These kinds of actions don�t reach the papers. Most of the time the people involved don�t even realize they have been the victim of a misinformed or overzealous agent, but if we allow a declaration of blanket ownership by a source country to trigger a violation of our National Stolen Property Act, and we assume that lack of documentation is proof of guilt, then we have an end to art collecting, sooner rather than later.
When art becomes stolen through an administrative declaration, a flourish of the pen, then all art collecting is at risk. This applies not only to antiquities but to the myriad of other objects that are claimed as national cultural heritage in many countries: photographs, paintings, sculpture, documents, coins, textiles and costumes. We'll be hearing later today about the Association of Art Museum Directors' decision not to purchase or accept for donation artworks that cannot be proven to have come into the United States before 1970. To my mind this rule is a self-administered slow poison, completely illogical and not required under any law.
There are already hundreds of thousands of objects, mostly minor, that cannot be donated under these rules. In another ten years, there will be many thousands more as owners pass away.
If art collecting is no longer honored, then the benefits to institutions of art collecting will end. If institutions aren't exciting places for collectors, collectors will stop supporting institutions. Archeology, which is supported by this enthusiasm and by the museum system, will suffer in turn.
This should be sobering stuff for anyone interested in the preservation of the past.
Division in Archaeological Community Over Immunity Bill
Rick St. Hilaire, former SAFE VP and current Lawyers� Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation Board Member, has departed from his fellows to support S. 2212, a bill meant to immunize art coming into the United States for museum exhibitions. See http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2012/04/foreign-cultural-exchange.html. I have critiqued the position of SAFE and the Lawyers� Committee here. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2012/04/lobbying-effort-against-immunity-bill.html
Will Return of Khmer Statue Back to Little Known Ruins Lead to Economic Development?
One can empathize with the Cambodians interviewed by the VOA who hope that the repatriation of a statue back to ruins in the area will lead to a tourist driven economic renaissance. See http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2012/04/voa-visits-cambodian-statues-original.html However, is this a realistic hope?
If one operates under the assumption that antiquities should be "saved for everyone" doesn't it instead also follow they should then be displayed in places where the most people will have an opportunity to see and enjoy them?
That is the point in this interesting comment I received from a knowledgeable individual after he reviewed the report:
Many of the local people in small towns in Italy, Greece, Turkey and elsewhere are convinced that having their own museum would be a panacea for all their ills. This, is in fact, never the case. That Getty statue found in the sea is often claimed as 'our' statue by the local villagers in the town where it was landed because they firmly believe that their town would become prosperous from all the visitors who would come to see it. This was also the case with the Riace bronzes, which the local people feel has been robbed from them because they are exhibited in Reggio. In Turkey they returned the Lydian Treasure to some dinky town museum in Usak which, according to that book on the treasure (by some woman I forget), received a total of 1000 visitors in the 5 years it had then been opened for. The fact that 1000s of people would see it per day in NYC versus 1000 in 5 years in Turkey is not a reason to accept illegal excavations, but it is, in a sensible way, justification for them!
If more Turks would view the items in the US than would ever see them in Turkey, well, this is a factor. The Melfi Sarcophagus is one of the top 10 or 20 of all Roman sarcophagi - found in 1856 it was for years stored in the Bishop's garage in Melfi (and had paint dripped on it when they painted the roof) but was removed to a new museum in the castle in 1976. How many people see it per year? If it had been found earlier and removed to Naples by the Bourbon kings, and put on display there how many more people would see it and how much better known would it be?In fact very few people travel to Melfi to see this object and few people leave any of their money there. Another perfect example of an object that is in an obscure place that you have to make a pilgrimage to see is the Vix Krater in the museum of Chatillon sur Seine. It is thelargest surviving ancient metal vessal and is super spectacular (I've actually seen it). But how many people actually get to see it? I am sure one can find out and I am sure that many,many more do go there than go to Usak or Melfi (and there is bound to be a restaurant nearby that has to be better than anything near either U or M). Thus, comparing a well run small museum in an out of the way place with totally useless small museums, brings up the question:if one of the basic tenets against private collecting is that the objects are for "everyone to enjoy", how can they do so if they are put in places that no one goes to?You can say that having objects from Turkey in the Metropolitan in NYC means that more people will see them (and 'enjoy' them) in a week than will see them in their place of origin in a year (or more), but this is very politically incorrect. But if they go on and on about how they are for everyone, it is thus better to have them where everyone is, rather than where they aren't.
While I actually think that major antiquities can be a draw for local tourism, I also believe for that to happen there needs to be an infrastructure in place, and that often takes substantial money that is well spent, and not wasted through poor planning or corruption.
And that is the real challenge, particularly when overgrasping cultural bureaucracies seek control over anything and everything old, rather than focusing on what is most important.
If one operates under the assumption that antiquities should be "saved for everyone" doesn't it instead also follow they should then be displayed in places where the most people will have an opportunity to see and enjoy them?
That is the point in this interesting comment I received from a knowledgeable individual after he reviewed the report:
Many of the local people in small towns in Italy, Greece, Turkey and elsewhere are convinced that having their own museum would be a panacea for all their ills. This, is in fact, never the case. That Getty statue found in the sea is often claimed as 'our' statue by the local villagers in the town where it was landed because they firmly believe that their town would become prosperous from all the visitors who would come to see it. This was also the case with the Riace bronzes, which the local people feel has been robbed from them because they are exhibited in Reggio. In Turkey they returned the Lydian Treasure to some dinky town museum in Usak which, according to that book on the treasure (by some woman I forget), received a total of 1000 visitors in the 5 years it had then been opened for. The fact that 1000s of people would see it per day in NYC versus 1000 in 5 years in Turkey is not a reason to accept illegal excavations, but it is, in a sensible way, justification for them!
If more Turks would view the items in the US than would ever see them in Turkey, well, this is a factor. The Melfi Sarcophagus is one of the top 10 or 20 of all Roman sarcophagi - found in 1856 it was for years stored in the Bishop's garage in Melfi (and had paint dripped on it when they painted the roof) but was removed to a new museum in the castle in 1976. How many people see it per year? If it had been found earlier and removed to Naples by the Bourbon kings, and put on display there how many more people would see it and how much better known would it be?In fact very few people travel to Melfi to see this object and few people leave any of their money there. Another perfect example of an object that is in an obscure place that you have to make a pilgrimage to see is the Vix Krater in the museum of Chatillon sur Seine. It is thelargest surviving ancient metal vessal and is super spectacular (I've actually seen it). But how many people actually get to see it? I am sure one can find out and I am sure that many,many more do go there than go to Usak or Melfi (and there is bound to be a restaurant nearby that has to be better than anything near either U or M). Thus, comparing a well run small museum in an out of the way place with totally useless small museums, brings up the question:if one of the basic tenets against private collecting is that the objects are for "everyone to enjoy", how can they do so if they are put in places that no one goes to?You can say that having objects from Turkey in the Metropolitan in NYC means that more people will see them (and 'enjoy' them) in a week than will see them in their place of origin in a year (or more), but this is very politically incorrect. But if they go on and on about how they are for everyone, it is thus better to have them where everyone is, rather than where they aren't.
While I actually think that major antiquities can be a draw for local tourism, I also believe for that to happen there needs to be an infrastructure in place, and that often takes substantial money that is well spent, and not wasted through poor planning or corruption.
And that is the real challenge, particularly when overgrasping cultural bureaucracies seek control over anything and everything old, rather than focusing on what is most important.
Artificial Deadlines
The archaeological leaning blogs are taking the new Getty Museum chief, Dr. Timothy Potts, to task because he was one of the AAMD principals behind adoption of the prior 10 year rolling "provenance" date for accessions. See http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2012/02/timothy-potts-problem-hasnt-gone-away.html
and http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2012/02/culturegrrl_qa_with_incoming_g_1.html
Yet, the recently adopted 1970 date is an artificial construct solely based on the vintage of the UNESCO Convention. The only reason the AAMD adopted it was due to pressure from the archaeological lobby.
But what has the AAMD and its members received in return? Long term loans? Not without paying the substantial costs associated with them, including transportation, insurance and restoration fees.
And how does this really fit with the mission of museums to preserve artifacts for future generations if they are not able to accession many artifacts just because they lack a documentary history stretching back to 1970?
And has adoption of this rule staunched looting in source countries? As Potts suggests, of course not.
and http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2012/02/culturegrrl_qa_with_incoming_g_1.html
Yet, the recently adopted 1970 date is an artificial construct solely based on the vintage of the UNESCO Convention. The only reason the AAMD adopted it was due to pressure from the archaeological lobby.
But what has the AAMD and its members received in return? Long term loans? Not without paying the substantial costs associated with them, including transportation, insurance and restoration fees.
And how does this really fit with the mission of museums to preserve artifacts for future generations if they are not able to accession many artifacts just because they lack a documentary history stretching back to 1970?
And has adoption of this rule staunched looting in source countries? As Potts suggests, of course not.
Italian Justice on Trial: Bob Hecht Vindicated?
Well, that is one way this sorry tale can be spun: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/01/italian-antiquities-robert-hecht-case-ends.html
After all the headlines, Bob Hecht, the alleged middleman at the center of an international conspiracy to launder looted art, has been freed because the statute of limitations has run under Italian law.
Paolo Ferri, Hecht's prosecutor, points the fingers at the "system." but presumably Ferri was responsible for moving the case forward, and with a little less show boating, perhaps that might have actually happened within the allotted time.
In any event, without a conviction in such a high profile case, perhaps Hecht can feel vindicated, at least to some extent.
The Italian show trial did convince US Museums to repatriate significant pieces to Italy. I wonder though, whether any have any nagging doubts about that now, at least with respect to some pieces. Also, the trial likely helped convince the AAMD and others to adopt a 1970 provenance rule. The foolishness of that decision is only now being felt, but nagging doubts about that one will grow too as fewer and fewer items become available for accession under these rules.
After all the headlines, Bob Hecht, the alleged middleman at the center of an international conspiracy to launder looted art, has been freed because the statute of limitations has run under Italian law.
Paolo Ferri, Hecht's prosecutor, points the fingers at the "system." but presumably Ferri was responsible for moving the case forward, and with a little less show boating, perhaps that might have actually happened within the allotted time.
In any event, without a conviction in such a high profile case, perhaps Hecht can feel vindicated, at least to some extent.
The Italian show trial did convince US Museums to repatriate significant pieces to Italy. I wonder though, whether any have any nagging doubts about that now, at least with respect to some pieces. Also, the trial likely helped convince the AAMD and others to adopt a 1970 provenance rule. The foolishness of that decision is only now being felt, but nagging doubts about that one will grow too as fewer and fewer items become available for accession under these rules.
Chasing Aphrodite at the National Press Club
Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino, investigative journalists and authors of "Chasing Aphrodite: The Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World�s Richest Museum" will join Gary Vikan, director of the Walters Art Museum and Arthur Houghton, a former curator at the Getty Museum, to discuss looted antiquities and transparency in American museums at 6 p.m. Jan. 24 in the National Press Club ballroom.
The event will be moderated by James Grimaldi, investigative reporter for the Washington Post.
In "Chasing Aphrodite," their gripping art world detective story, Felch and Frammolino reveal the inner workings of the J. Paul Getty Museum and its quest to build a worldclass collection of Roman and Greek art. Hubris, greed and ethics are key themes in the book, which culminates with Italy�s criminal indictment of the Getty�s antiquities curator and the return of $1 billion of ancient objects from U.S. museums and private collections.
"Chasing Aphrodite" gives an unparalleled glimpse into the reality that lies behind many of America�s collections of ancient art. It is the culmination of five years of reporting that began with a Los Angeles Times series for which Felch and Frammolino were finalists for the Pulitzer Prize in 2006.
The National Press Club is located at 529 14th Street, NW - 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045.
The event will be moderated by James Grimaldi, investigative reporter for the Washington Post.
In "Chasing Aphrodite," their gripping art world detective story, Felch and Frammolino reveal the inner workings of the J. Paul Getty Museum and its quest to build a worldclass collection of Roman and Greek art. Hubris, greed and ethics are key themes in the book, which culminates with Italy�s criminal indictment of the Getty�s antiquities curator and the return of $1 billion of ancient objects from U.S. museums and private collections.
"Chasing Aphrodite" gives an unparalleled glimpse into the reality that lies behind many of America�s collections of ancient art. It is the culmination of five years of reporting that began with a Los Angeles Times series for which Felch and Frammolino were finalists for the Pulitzer Prize in 2006.
The National Press Club is located at 529 14th Street, NW - 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045.
State Department, Spain, Navy (and Archaeologists?) Torpeodo Effort to Change Law to Allow Commercial Salvage of More Warships
The State Department, joined by the US Navy, Spain and presumably archaeologists, have torpedoed an effort to to change the law to allow more commerical exploitation of old warships. See http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Treasure-hunters-battle-for-500-million-bounty-2406490.php
The State Department and US Navy claimed their opposition was meant to protect against commercial exploitation of US warships, but the reality is that the change in the law would likely have only impacted exploitation of Spanish warships that were also used to transport treasure from the New World.
More evidence that the State Department will always take the side of foreign governments over US commercial interests, particularly where those interests are also opposed by the US archaeological lobby. (This gives the bureaucrats at least some cover in that they can say there are US academic interests on their side.)
One wonders whether the next move of Spain and their archaeological allies will be to claim that Spanish treasure already in the hands of US collectors and museums should be repatriated to Spain (or should that be Mexico, Bolivia or Peru)?
The State Department and US Navy claimed their opposition was meant to protect against commercial exploitation of US warships, but the reality is that the change in the law would likely have only impacted exploitation of Spanish warships that were also used to transport treasure from the New World.
More evidence that the State Department will always take the side of foreign governments over US commercial interests, particularly where those interests are also opposed by the US archaeological lobby. (This gives the bureaucrats at least some cover in that they can say there are US academic interests on their side.)
One wonders whether the next move of Spain and their archaeological allies will be to claim that Spanish treasure already in the hands of US collectors and museums should be repatriated to Spain (or should that be Mexico, Bolivia or Peru)?
Immediate Past President of the AIA to American Museums: Stop Collecting!
Brian Rose, the AIA's immediate past president, has been quoted as telling America's museums to stop collecting antiquities. According to the report,
Rose said he felt the era in which American museums can collect antiquities is coming to a close.
Source countries are becoming more aggressive in pursuing traffickers and enforcing laws against looting, he said.
....
Buying antiquities could alienate foreign governments and prevent the cooperation necessary for international loans of individual objects or traveling exhibitions, Rose said.
�You�ll end up in litigation, and you won�t be able to enter into collaborative projects,� he said. �It�s all about collaboration now.�
Rather than collect, museums ought to forge agreements with source countries to share cultural riches, Rose said.
See http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2011/12/conference_at_the_american_aca.html
Despite such quotes, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford continues to claim that the AIA is really not against collecting. But if so, where are quotes from the AIA's leadership indicating that they support the rights of ordinary Americans to collect minor portable antiquities, such as coins, let alone more significant items?
Addendum: For more on the AIA's anti-collecting stance, see http://www.archaeological.org/sitepreservation/faqs
Q: Isn�t this disagreement between collectors and archaeologists really the work of a bunch of radical archaeologists who have lost touch with the public?
A: No, in fact, the stand taken by the AIA, the oldest and largest archaeological organization in North America, is representative of the point of view of all the mainstream archaeological organizations in the U.S. including the Society for American Archaeology, the Society for Historic Archaeology, the American Schools of Oriental Research and others. It�s also the stance of other major international archaeological groups. In fact, in January, an unprecedented agreement will be signed among the AIA, the German Archaeological Institute and the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences to battle the scourge of looting. A Harris interactive survey published in 2000 also showed that public opinion agrees with the position of the AIA�the main value of archaeological sites is scientific and educational and U.S. museums should not acquire illegally exported artifacts.
Q: What about the orphaned object that is out of the ground and circulating in the market with its context already destroyed and it provenance uncertain? Shouldn�t this object be acquired and given a good home?
A: The acquisition of these objects encourages looting. Objects like this are likely stolen. When confronted with an object like this, the best thing to do is to contact the authorities. You would not buy a hot car or a diamond watch from a disreputable source -- why buy an antiquity from a disreputable salesperson?
Q: In many cases there are multiple copies of certain antiquities, some with so many duplicates that they cannot all be displayed. What is wrong with the trade in multiples?
A: Some countries do allow trade in duplicates, including Israel. But it is difficult to identify a duplicate from a country that allows trade, and it�s difficult to prevent the sale of new objects as duplicates. Furthermore, most museums and private collectors are interested in high-end, unique objects, not �duplicates.� It�s primarily the trade in expensive, unique artifacts that drives the illegal market.
I would note the AIA also describes what constitutes a "licit artifact" according to its view of the law, but that is hardly an endoresment of collecting.
Rose said he felt the era in which American museums can collect antiquities is coming to a close.
Source countries are becoming more aggressive in pursuing traffickers and enforcing laws against looting, he said.
....
Buying antiquities could alienate foreign governments and prevent the cooperation necessary for international loans of individual objects or traveling exhibitions, Rose said.
�You�ll end up in litigation, and you won�t be able to enter into collaborative projects,� he said. �It�s all about collaboration now.�
Rather than collect, museums ought to forge agreements with source countries to share cultural riches, Rose said.
See http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2011/12/conference_at_the_american_aca.html
Despite such quotes, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford continues to claim that the AIA is really not against collecting. But if so, where are quotes from the AIA's leadership indicating that they support the rights of ordinary Americans to collect minor portable antiquities, such as coins, let alone more significant items?
Addendum: For more on the AIA's anti-collecting stance, see http://www.archaeological.org/sitepreservation/faqs
Q: Isn�t this disagreement between collectors and archaeologists really the work of a bunch of radical archaeologists who have lost touch with the public?
A: No, in fact, the stand taken by the AIA, the oldest and largest archaeological organization in North America, is representative of the point of view of all the mainstream archaeological organizations in the U.S. including the Society for American Archaeology, the Society for Historic Archaeology, the American Schools of Oriental Research and others. It�s also the stance of other major international archaeological groups. In fact, in January, an unprecedented agreement will be signed among the AIA, the German Archaeological Institute and the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences to battle the scourge of looting. A Harris interactive survey published in 2000 also showed that public opinion agrees with the position of the AIA�the main value of archaeological sites is scientific and educational and U.S. museums should not acquire illegally exported artifacts.
Q: What about the orphaned object that is out of the ground and circulating in the market with its context already destroyed and it provenance uncertain? Shouldn�t this object be acquired and given a good home?
A: The acquisition of these objects encourages looting. Objects like this are likely stolen. When confronted with an object like this, the best thing to do is to contact the authorities. You would not buy a hot car or a diamond watch from a disreputable source -- why buy an antiquity from a disreputable salesperson?
Q: In many cases there are multiple copies of certain antiquities, some with so many duplicates that they cannot all be displayed. What is wrong with the trade in multiples?
A: Some countries do allow trade in duplicates, including Israel. But it is difficult to identify a duplicate from a country that allows trade, and it�s difficult to prevent the sale of new objects as duplicates. Furthermore, most museums and private collectors are interested in high-end, unique objects, not �duplicates.� It�s primarily the trade in expensive, unique artifacts that drives the illegal market.
I would note the AIA also describes what constitutes a "licit artifact" according to its view of the law, but that is hardly an endoresment of collecting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)