Skip to main content

"Due diligence and good faith inquiries are no longer sufficient"

An extract of James Cuno's new book, Who Owns Antiquity? [Princeton UP, 2008] [WorldCat]) has appeared in the Wall Street Journal (April 26, 2008).

I am waiting to read the whole volume but I would like to comment on a few of points.

Language is important. Christopher Chippindale and I have long argued that the word "provenance" (and with it "unprovenanced") is confusing. We have tended to use the terms "history" and "archaeology". The first maps the collecting history and documentation (e.g. "from the Thomas Brand collection" or "given by Giacomo Medici"). The second provides information on where it left the ground (e.g. "excavated from tomb 42 at Abydos" or "said to be from Cerveteri"). Cuno comments:
Archaeologists argue that unprovenanced antiquities are almost always looted from archaeological sites or from what would become archaeological sites. But strictly speaking, since provenance is a matter of ownership and not archaeological status, and as some countries allow for the ownership of antiquities but not their export, it is possible to illegally export a legally owned, unprovenanced antiquity.
He generalises. But what we have shown is that antiquities with histories only after 1970—and 1983 is a distraction—have been included in the returns to Italy: this is particularly true for our comments on the Fleischman collection, and the Shelby White / Leon Levy collection.

Cuno again generalises when he talks about the debate looking at "the legal aspect of their ownership". This would ignore the material and intellectual consequences of looting (and subsequent collecting). But no doubt he will address this in the full volume.

He poses the question:
Is there convincing evidence that the unprovenanced antiquity was removed from its country of origin in violation of that country's laws?
He cites the example of a Roman object that could have been found anywhere across the empire. Need it have been found in Italy? But a more interesting example for him to have discussed would have been the quantities of Apulian pots that are being given back to Italy. (Or for Greece, how about Cycladic figures?)

Cuno is clearly critical of the way that the media has been used to reclaim antiquities for Italy. He does not comment in this extract on the use of Polaroids and documentation in the Italian public courts of law. If an image used in a trial is identified in a public collection, have the media a right to comment? And should a museum (or private collector) elaborate on the "history" of the piece in question? The reporting has been "sensational" because the revelations have been jaw-droppingly shocking.

Cuno now accepts "due diligence and good faith inquiries are no longer sufficient". He is right to recommend that "U.S. art museums have to be much more careful"—and Francesco Rutelli's successful reclamation programme has brought this painfully home.

Cuno grumbles that the recently surfaced antiquities—he uses the term "undocumented"—are going to public collections in other parts of the world.
Keeping them from U.S. art museums is not a solution, only a diversion.
The Italian authorities have said that they intend to pursue further antiquities in Denmark and Japan.

The issue to address is this: how can we work together to reduce the damage to our shared cultural heritage?

Comments

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.