Skip to main content

Collecting Antiquities and Enlightenment Principles

James Cuno has been raising some key issues about the acquisition of antiquities. I was struck by his reaction to the 1983 US Congress implementation of the 1970 UNESCO "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property".
These actions have been taken to enforce foreign nations' retentionist cultural policies at the expense of the Enlightenment principles on which public museums in the United States were established. [p. 144]
Is it "enlightened" to reject the desire for countries to protect their cultural property and archaeological sites?

Is it "enlightened" to ignore the material consequences to the archaeological record?

Is it "enlightened" to fail to see the intellectual consequences of acquiring newly surfaced antiquities that have no recorded find-spots?

This is not just about acquisition but also the safeguarding of a finite archaeological resource.

Does it matter in our cosmopolitan world if an Attic krater is displayed in Minneapolis or Rome? Or an Athenian marble relief in London or Athens? Or a Cycladic figure in Paris or the Naxos Museum?

At one level the answer is no. If the find-spot is known it makes no difference to the interpretation of the object if the item is on view in Berlin or Istanbul. And if the find-spot is lost, "returning" the item will not restore its context. Cuno makes the helpful observation:
But when an antiquity is offered to a museum for acquisition, the looting, if indeed there was any, has already occurred. Now the museum must decide whether to bring the object into its public collection, where it can be preserved, studied, and enjoyed, and where its whereabouts can be made widely known. Museums are havens for objects that are already, and for whatever reason, alienated from their original context. [p. 155]
But should museums acquire recently surfaced antiquities?

And this brings me back to my series of questions, and which is why at another level I would have to answer, "yes, it does matter where objects are displayed".

Take the massive rise in the number of previously unknown Apulian pots available at auction through the 1980s and 1990s. Their appearance is directly linked to the deliberate destruction of funerary contexts in southern Italy to supply a market. And the buyers have been public institutions and private collectors. So it does matter if there is active acquisition of Apulian pots because there is a material implication for the funerary record (see "An Italian Cavalryman in Manhattan") and an intellectual implication for their interpretation.

Discouraging the acquisition of Apulian pottery unknown prior to 1970 is one way to discourage looting. The pieces of Apulian pottery attributed to the Darius painter and returned to Italy from Boston, Malibu, Princeton, as well as New York, have lost their contexts; but their transfer of ownership will probably make those museums think twice about acquiring newly surfaced Apulian material.

Cuno would, no doubt, argue that the contexts had been lost: so does acquisition matter? But when we realise that these returning Apulian pieces are associated with individuals and galleries such as Giacomo Medici, Fritz Bürki, Robert Hecht, and Atlantis Antiquities, it can be appreciated that these are unlikely to be chance finds.

And I am left thinking that the "Enlightenment principles on which public museums in the United States were established" have perhaps contributed to the irreversible destruction of our universal, or cosmopolitan, cultural heritage.

Reference
Cuno, J. 2005. "Museums, antiquities, cultural property, and the US legal framework for making acquisitions." In Who owns the past? Cultural policy, cultural property, and the law, edited by K. Fitz Gibbon, pp. 143-57. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press / American Council for Cultural Policy.

Image courtesy of the Princeton University Art Museum

Red figure loutrophoros (ceramic), attributed to the Darius Painter. South Italian, Apulian, ca. 335-325 B.C. One of four objects to be transferred in title to the Italian government but to remain on loan to the Princeton University Art Museum.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.



"Beating sites to death"

Policy decisions for protecting archaeological sites need to be informed by carefully argued positions based on data. Dr Sam Hardy has produced an important study, “Metal detecting for cultural objects until ‘there is nothing left’: The potential and limits of digital data, netnographic data and market data for analysis”. Arts 7, 3 (2018) [online]. This builds on Hardy's earlier research.

Readers should note Hardy's conclusion about his findings: "they corroborate the detecting community’s own perception that they are ‘beat[ing these sites] to death’".

Pieterjan Deckers, Andres Dobat, Natasha Ferguson, Stijn Heeren, Michael Lewis, and Suzie Thomas may wish to reflect on whether or not their own position is endangering the finite archaeological record. 

Abstract
This methodological study assesses the potential for automatically generated data, netnographic data and market data on metal-detecting to advance cultural property criminology. The method comprises the analysi…