Skip to main content

Culture Wars, Spoils and Archaeological Contexts

Lee Rosenbaum addresses the implications of the return of cultural property from North American public and private collections to Italy ("Make art loans, not war", LA Times, January 21, 2008).
To the victor in the cultural-property wars belong the spoils. But now that American museums have acceded to demands for restitution, it's time to ask not only what "universal museums" can do for antiquities' countries of origin, but also what the source countries can do for the world's encyclopedic museums.
"Universal museums" can and do hold archaeological material derived from scientific excavations. If we take some British examples, museums hold excavated material from British work in Cyprus, Crete, the Cyclades and Laconia. These items have inspired and trained new generations of archaeologists.

But the returns from North America have not been about objects derived from scientific excavations. They are objects that have surfaced on the antiquities market without a documented history. And P. Watson and C. Todeschini (see review by Gill and Chippindale) have demonstrated in some detail the route by which these items were ripped from their archaeological contexts to provide spoils for what Rosenbaum and others call "universal museums".

"Universal museums" have a place: but not at the expense of destroying unrecorded archaeological sites. And that is what lies at the heart of the issue about the recent returns to Italy. Wherever the Sarpedon krater resides, we will never known its precise last resting place and the complete archaeological assemblage.

So these returns are symbolic of unethical curatorial behaviour that was indifferent to the material and intellectual consequences.

Rosenbaum concludes:
In the bad old days, acquirers of antiquities knew, or at least suspected, that what they were doing was problematic. What's changed now, thanks to aggressive enforcement by the source countries, is that it's become much harder to get away with it.
Are curators really this reformed? If there is a new spirit of transparency, why are the previous histories of objects from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and Princeton not in the public domain (as far as I know)? Which other North American museums and private collections hold material sold to them by, say, Robin Symes or Robert Hecht? And what about European and Japanese collections? And why are antiquities still being presented as a good investment? I suspect the requests for returns will continue.

Comments

David Gill said…
Lee Rosenbaum has posted some reaction to her piece.

I was struck by this one from a "prominent curator at a major museum (not the Metropolitan or the Getty)" :

"What would happen if Greece were to move to claim the Euphronios Krater from Italy, on the potentially logical basis that it was made in Greece and emotionally and morally belongs in Greece???"

Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Athenian pots (figure-decorated and black-glossed) were transported to Italy and Sicily where they were placed in graves - whether it be of Greek colonists, Etruscans, or other cultural groups. This movement of pots 2500 (or so) years ago is a significant archaeological and cultural phenomenon.

The "prominent curator" has perhaps revealed his or her ignorance of the issues surrounding cultural property and the interpretation of the ancient world.

Popular posts from this blog

Marble bull's head from the temple of Eshmun

Excavations at the temple of Eshmun in Lebanon recovered a marble bull's head. It is now suggested that it was this head, apparently first published in 1967, that was placed on loan to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art (Tom Mashberg, "Met Museum Turns Over Another Relic With Disputed Past to Prosecutors", New York Times August 1, 2017 ). The head is reported to have been handed over to the Manhattan district attorney after a request was received from the Lebanese authorities.

It is suggested that the head may have been looted from an archaeological storage area at Byblos in the 1980s during the Lebanese civil war. Mashberg has rehearsed the recent collecting history:
The owners of the bull’s head, Lynda and William Beierwaltes of Colorado, say they have clear title to the item and have sued Manhattan prosecutors for its return.  The Beierwaltes bought the head from a dealer in London in 1996 for more than $1 million and then sold it to another collector, Michael …

Mithras relief from Tor Cervara

A fragmentary relief of Mithras was discovered in 1964 at Tor Cervara on the outskirts of Rome. It was acquired by the Museo Nazionale Romano.

A further fragment of the relief was acquired by the Badisches Landesmueum in Kalrsruhe in 1976. The source was an unstated Swiss dealer. This fragment has been reunited with the rest of the relief [press release].

Today a further fragment of the relief was reunited with the other pieces. This had been recovered during a raid in Sardinia.

The Toledo skyphos and a Swiss private collection

The Attic red-figured skyphos attributed to the Kleophon painter in the Toledo Museum of Art (inv. 1982.88) is now coming under further scrutiny following the research of Dr Christos Tsirogiannis. The skyphos shows Hephaistos returning to Olympos.

Tsirogiannis has identified what appears to be this skyphos in five photographs in the Medici Dossier. The museum acknowledged that the skyphos had resided in a 'private Swiss collection'. Tsirogiannis suggests that this is probably a reference to Medici.

Enquiries to the museum by Tsirogiannis elicited the information that the skyphos had been acquired from Nicholas Koutoulakis (although that information does not appear on the museum's online catalogue).

The curatorial team at the Toledo Museum of Art will, no doubt, be contacting the Italian authorities to discuss the future residence of the skyphos.

For further discussion of the Toledo Museum of Art on LM see here.

Reference
Tsirogiannis, C. 2017. "Nekyia: Museum ethics an…