Skip to main content

Changing attitudes

I have been returning to some of the cases of antiquities returned to Turkey. This included a detailed interview with investigative journalist Özgen Acar (UNESCO Courier April 1, 2001). He was asked, "From your experience, what are the most effective ways to prevent smuggling?"

First of all, we have to change the buyer's attitude. Court cases won by Turkey have discouraged museums and collectors from buying smuggled works. They don't want the inconvenience of a court case, having their names in the newspapers and loosing money. The Met paid $1.7 million for their collection [sc. Lydian Treasure] and Koch $3.5 million for his [sc. "The Elmali Hoard" / "The Dekadrachm Hoard"]. They spent at least twice as much as this on legal expenses. Secondly, Turkey should make agreements with museums in the purchasing countries. "Don't buy smuggled works--I'll send you exhibitions on loan every three or four years." As a matter of fact, Turkey has sent as many as 35 exhibitions abroad in the last 15 years. The third step is to expose the smuggling mafia with their international connections, and put them out of business. [...] Several respected antiquity dealers in the U.S. lost confidence in their business partners when they realized that they were, in fact, dealing with smugglers.

The Italian Government has certainly been using the media to great effect in its successful campaign to reclaim antiquities that appear to have been looted in recent decades.


Heather Hope said…
In addition to creating expensive legal battles for museums, publicity regarding questionable acquisitions create publicity nightmares for museums caught up in these scandals. For good or bad, the museum gets linked in the public's collective mind as a place that buys stolen works. For institutions that are depending on public support, this is not what you want your name associated with!
David Gill said…
This is indeed the problem. Did museum directors want to send out a signal that they would rather hang onto material that appeared to have been looted?
Heather Hope said…

I think the problem is that museums are in a period of transition. They are evolving from an area that people "fell into" accidentally to a more professionalized environment. Behavior that would shock many graduates of museum professional programs were often ignored or silently accepted 20 or 30 or 50 years ago.

Hopefully, more directors, curators, registrars, etc., will learn that they must ask the hard questions before acquiring objects.

David Gill said…
While I think you are right about the awareness of professional responsibilities, I am not convinced that all curators (and directors) are so enlightened. I am aware of several Greek antiquities acquired by two AAMD member institutions that do not appear to have previous recorded histories. Why were the objects acquired?
Best wishes
Heather Hope said…

Unfortunately, I can't say that I'm terribly surprised about those acquisitions, though it is disappointing and disheartening. I think some of the "old guard" in museums have a mind-set that only public backlash and legal action is going to change.

What I'm saying is that I hope that the new generation of professionally trained museum workers, the so-called "Emerging Museum Professionals" (those who are graduating now or recently from the many Master's programs nationwide) will have a different outlook on these issues. I know that cultural patrimony, looting, and art theft were topics covered in my Master's program. I assume the problems and realities are discussed elsewhere, too.

Anonymous said…
There are a number of reasons an institution may take in objects with very little, or no records of provenance. The objects may be part of a larger collection that the museum has worked towards acquiring, and their acceptance of the pieces may be part of the rules of the bequest- no collector wants to have pieces of a collection, which they may have spent many years building, spurned by an institution they happen to be donating them to. The objects may come to them from a trustee, or another trusted personage, that they truly believe have had the object in their family prior to 1970. Some of these reasons carry more water than others, but it's important to recognize that most museums no longer have a budget for acquisitions of antiquities, and they do turn away objects on a regular basis. The pieces you've mentioned may in fact represent the best choices the ancient art department has had in some time to build their collection. While I may not be able to comment specifically on the pieces you've mentioned, I'd like to think that all museums with ancient art departments are trying their utmost to balance their collection with as much integrity and academic depth as they can.
Heather Hope said…
Aaron: I agree with you, as well.

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 …

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.

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

Metropolitan Museum of Art hands over Paestan krater

In May 2014 I commented on a Paestan krater acquired by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art after it had been identified by Dr Christos Tsirogiannis in photographic images seized from Giacomo Medici. Tsirogiannis published his full concerns in the Journal of Art Crime in 2014, but it has taken a further three years for the museum to respond.

The krater showing Dionysos in a hand-drawn cart was purchased in 1989 from the Bothmer Purchase Fund (details from the Museum's website, inv. 1989.11.4). The krater surfaced through Sotheby's New York in June 1989.

It is unclear who consigned the krater to Sotheby's New York.

It has now been revealed that the krater has been handed over to the US authorities after a warrant had been issued (Tom Mashberg, "Ancient Vase Seized From Met Museum on Suspicion It Was Looted", New York Times July 31, 2018).

It appears that the museum did make an attempt to resolve the case in December 2016. Mashberg notes:
The Met, for its par…