Skip to main content

Is the AAMD policy having an impact on private collectors?

In 2008 the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) adopted a new policy towards the acquisition of antiquities. They chose to use 1970, the date of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, as the benchmark for acquisitions ("the most pertinent threshold date for the application of more rigorous standards to the acquisition of archaeological material and ancient art"). At the same time they launched an object register to allow individuals to study newly acquired items.

The AAMD needed to react to the bad publicity generated by five of its members having to return antiquities to Italy (and in one case Greece):
  1. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts
  2. The Cleveland Museum of Art
  3. Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum
  4. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art
  5. Princeton University Art Museum
Why was the material returned? The answer appears to be quite simple: documentary and photographic evidence (some of it seized in Switzerland) appeared to suggest that the objects had been removed from archaeological sites (and countries of origin) illegally.

AAMD members are understandably sensitive. They do not want to be facing similar bad publicity.

But now collectors are concerned. How can they sell, donate or bequeath their collections of antiquities to North American institutions? And remember that some major North American collectors have been associated with the returns to Italy.

The issue has been raised by a research project ("issue") of the Cultural Property Research Institute. The CPRI seeks to determine "the number of artistically and academically significant, privately-owned objects in the United States that are currently excluded from acquisition by US museums". The issue is explained:
Even as the number of “orphan objects” – those that cannot by self-rule be acquired or accepted as loans by US museums – continues to grow, so does the need for accurate data on the nature and volume of such material in private collections and on the US market. The CPRI will seek to develop a methodology that can help determine the number of significant orphan objects in a particular cultural/historical area, with a view toward establishing credible order-of-magnitude figures, over time, for all cultural/historical areas. Initial conclusions will be published on the CPRI website by the end of 2009. Comments will be invited.
Here is my comment.

If the number of "orphaned objects" continues to grow, it can only mean that private collectors are continuing to buy recently surfaced objects that have no documented and authenticated collecting history that can be traced back to 1970.

And these private collectors continue to augment their collection either because they are unaware of the ethical issues or because they have been advised by third parties to continue buying.

I have done quantified research in this area with Christopher Chippindale. What is interesting is that two of the North American private collections highlighted by our study published in the American Journal of Archaeology proved to contain items that have been returned to Italy. So there does appear to be an issue for objects with no documented histories.

Of course some objects sitting in attics will have been "known" well before 1970. But we also need to accept that newly surfaced can sometimes mean recently looted.

So why does the CPRI want to undertake this research? What are the aims of the project?

The CPRI intends to publish initial conclusions by the end of 2009 (less than five months away). My experience of working with such data makes me think that this is an ambitious target.

How are these private collectors to be identified? Will there be photographs and images on the CPRI website? Will the collecting histories of the objects be provided?

But what are private collectors to do? Would they consider making gifts to the countries where the objects are likely to have been found? Perhaps they could add a donation towards display and conservation.

Comments

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.

Reference
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…