Skip to main content

James Cuno on Antiquities

James Cuno has been interviewed by Richard Lacayo for Time ("A Talk With: James Cuno", January 27, 2008; "More Talk: With James Cuno", January 28, 2008).

The emphasis of the interview is on ownership (including Cuno's forthcoming book, Who Owns Antiquity? [Princeton UP] [WorldCat]) and where objects are displayed. So there are comments on "retentionist cultural property laws" that are felt not to work.

But for archaeologists the issue is about the protection of archaeological contexts and the recognition that recently surfaced antiquities are likely to come from looting.

There is a focus on partage which has allowed the share of archaeological finds to be dispersed among museums and indeed form the basis of university teaching collections. To Cuno's list of North American examples we could add British university museums such as The Ashmolean Museum or The Fitzwilliam Museum. But partage is not an issue. As the items come from excavations we (usually) know the contexts, and so it is of little archaeological importance if the piece is displayed in, say, Athens, Cambridge (UK) or Boston.

Cuno tries to belittle attempts by countries such as Italy to seek the return of their cultural property. Indeed he suggests the motives are political. But surely one of the reasons we have seen returns to Italy from Boston, Malibu, New York and Princeton is that there has been clear evidence of wrong-doing that has convinced museum authorities to hand over part of their holdings? No doubt the documentary evidence from the Geneva Freeport helped.

Cuno closes the interview with this:
Museum [sic.] recognize that there is a relationship between the marketplace and looting, and we want to distance ourselves from it as much as we can and still preserve these things that will otherwise be lost. How do you behave responsibly in this realm? There has to be a package of responses. One part of the package is partage. And another part has to do with allowing museums to reasonably acquire.
But it is not about having a reasonable acquisition policy. It is about having an ethical acquisition policy.

Lacayo has once again failed to ask the difficult questions. What about Cuno's position on acquiring and displaying potentially looted material at Harvard? But perhaps we will have to read the book.

Comments

Kavita Singh said…
Dear David Gill,
I teach art history at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. I have an article in the June issue of the art newspaper where I look at what the 'Universal Museum' looks like from the margins. It might be of interest to you. The link is:

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=7962
Best wishes
Kavita Singh
WBUR said…
Dr. Gill-

This may perhaps be of interest:

James Cuno was recently interviewed by Robin Young on the show "Here & Now" for 90.9 WBUR in Boston. They talked about Cuno's controversial views and his new book Who Owns Antiquity?. You can listen to the full interview at http://www.here-now.org/shows/2008/08/20080820_17.asp.

-Regards from WBUR

Popular posts from this blog

Codename: Ainsbrook

I have been watching (UK) Channel 4's Time Team this evening. The programme looked at an undisclosed field (under a potato crop) where a Viking burial had been found. The location in Yorkshire was so sensitive that it was given a codename: Ainsbrook. Here is the summary:
In late 2003 two metal detectorists were working in a field in Yorkshire. They found 'treasure' buried just beneath the surface – a collection of Viking material next to a body. Although they had been detecting on the site for a number of years, during which time they had made large numbers of finds, nothing they had uncovered previously compared with this. They decided to share their discovery with archaeologists.The programme explored the tension between metal-detectorists and the English Heritage sponsored archaeologists putting six trenches into the field based on a geo-physical survey. Finds made by the metal-detectorists did not easily map onto the archaeological features.

Part of the programme had an …

The scale of the returns to Italy

I have been busy working on an overview, "Returning Archaeological Objects to Italy". The scale of the returns to Italy from North American collections and galleries is staggering: in excess of 350 objects. This is clearly the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the material that has surfaced on the market without a history that can be traced back to the period before 1970. 

I will provide more information in due course, but the researcher is a reminder that we need to take due diligence seriously when it comes to making acquisitions.

Stele returns to Greece

The Hellenic Ministry of Culture has announced (Saturday 8 September 2018) that a stele that had been due to be auctioned at Sotheby's in London in June 2017 has been returned to Greece (Friday 7 September 2018). The identification had been made by Cambridge-based forensic archaeologist Dr Christos Tsirogiannis.

It appeared that the stele had been supplied with a falsified history as its presence with Becchina until 1990 contradicted the published sale catalogue entry. It then moved into the hands of George Ortiz.

A year ago it was suggested that Sotheby's should contact the Greek authorities. Those negotiations appear to have concluded successfully.

The 4th century BC stele fragment, with the personal name, Hestiaios, will be displayed in the Epigraphic Museum in Athens. It appears to have come from a cemetery in Attica.