Skip to main content

"Stolen, illegally excavated or illegally exported"

I have earlier commented on the use of the word "stolen" as it relates to antiquities. My list was not intended to be exclusive, and it was not providing a definition of "stolen" from a legal perspective. It was a comment on my personal use of the word.

I am grateful to Washington attorney Peter Tompa for pointing out that my usage, as previously outlined, was overly restrictive and does not accord with the legal definition of “stolen” established in the U.S. courts. Nor does it accord with the U.K. law. My personal position, as a British citizen, is informed by UK legislation and in particular The Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. (Note: the Act does not cover Scotland.)

The guidance notes to the Act make it clear that the legislation was created to make
"a criminal offence of trading in cultural property in designated categories from designated countries which had been stolen, illegally excavated or illegally exported from those countries" (3).
So let me take a hypothetical example. Imagine a fourth century BCE cemetery in Italy ripped apart by mechanical diggers in order to obtain some Apulian pots. (I am not sure "illegally excavated" quite describes the process.) The Apulian pots are then illegally transported across the Italian border to Switzerland. In the next stage the pots are offered for sale in, say, London.

My understanding is that anyone knowingly dealing in such objects would be committing an offence under The Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. The pots had been removed in an illicit way from their archaeological context and then been removed from their country of origin.

Tompa points to the Archaeological Institute of America's comment,
many countries that are rich in archaeological resources have enacted national ownership laws. This means that any antiquity in the ground at the time the ownership law was enacted is the property of the nation. If such an artifact is dug up and removed from the country without permission it is stolen property, and remains so even after it is brought to the United States. Those objects should be dealt with in the same way as one would treat any other stolen property.
These principles are derived from the decision, United States v. Schultz.

The issue is helpfully explained by Patty Gerstenblith, "The McClain/Schultz doctrine: another step against trade in stolen antiquities", Culture Without Context 13 (Autumn 2003). She drew attention to the importance of United States v. McClain, a case relating to antiquities from Mexico. The more significant case was United States v. Schultz linked specifically to archaeological material from Egypt. The issue, as Gerstenblith has presented it ("Recent developments in the legal protection of cultural heritage", in Neil Brodie, Morag M. Kersel, Christina Luke and Kathryn Walker-Tubb (eds.), Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade (University Press of Florida, 2006) 71), can be summarised as follows:
After two lengthy hearings on these questions, the court issued its opinion in January 2002, holding that property taken in violation of a national ownership law is still stolen property, even after entering the United States.
There were implications for those who dealt with recently surfaced archaeological material. The court made a statement (333 F.3d, at 410 quoted in Gerstenblith, "Recent developments", 72-73):
Although we recognize the concerns raised by Schultz and the amici about the risks that this holding poses to dealers in foreign antiquities, we cannot imagine that it "creates an insurmountable barrier to the lawful importation of cultural property into the United States." Our holding does assuredly create a barrier to the importation of cultural property owned by a foreign government. We see no reason that property stolen from a foreign sovereign should be treated any differently from property stolen from a foreign museum or private home. The mens rea requirement of the NSPA will protect innocent art dealers who unwittingly receive stolen goods, while our appropriately broad reading of the NSPA will protect the property of sovereign nations.
I respect the US court decision in the way that it interprets the word "stolen".

Where do we move from here? The debate needs to revolve around how to safeguard our cosmopolitan past.

Let me close with a further quote from Gerstenblith ("Recent developments", 74):
The clear message that [the Schultz] decision sends to the art market community should decrease the desire to trade in undocumented antiquities and thereby reduce the incentives for the initial looting of sites.
I share that desire.


David- Now this is funny. First, you take me to task personally in the blogosphere for supposedly misrepresenting your position and that of the archaeological community. Then, when I note agreement with your definition of the term "stolen,' you run away from it and adopt the exact same formulation that formed the basis for my initial post, that you said misrepresented your views and that of the archaeological community.

This sort of foolishness does little to elevate the level of debate on these issues.

It also reminds me that in some of your early posts you seemed to be "for the U.K.'s PAS and Treasure Act," but that seemed to change once you apparently learned that the ACCG also supported it.

Peter Tompa
David Gill said…

I commented on my personal view, and have clarified my position in the light of your helpful post. Surely this is one of the benefits of dialogue?

I find your comment on my view of the PAS and ACCG puzzling. You say, "in some of your early posts you seemed to be "for the U.K.'s PAS and Treasure Act," but that seemed to change once you apparently learned that the ACCG also supported it."

In October 2007 (one of my earliest posts on PAS) I commented on Dave Welsh, who was at the time an officer of the ACCG, and his view of PAS.

Several months later, in March 2008, I see I was commenting in support of PAS funding.

Have you got your chronology right?

Best wishes


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 …

Sardinian warrior from "old Swiss collection"

One of the Sardinian bronzes of a warrior was seized from an as yet unnamed Manahattan gallery. It appears to be the one that passed through the Royal-Athena Gallery: Art of the Ancient World 23 (2012) no. 71. The collecting history for that warrior suggests that it was acquired in 1990 from a private collection in Geneva.

Other clues suggested that the warrior has resided in a New York private collection.

The identity of the private collection in Geneva will no doubt be telling.

The warrior also features in this news story: Jennifer Peltz, "Looted statues, pottery returned to Italy after probe in NYC", ABC News May 25 2017.

Attic amphora handed back to Italians

The research of Dr Christos Tsirogiannis has led to the return of an Attic red-figured amphora, attributed to the Harrow painter, to Italy (Tom Mashberg, "Stolen Etruscan Vessel to Be Returned to Italy", New York Times March 16, 2017).

The amphora is known to have passed through the hands of Swiss-based dealer Gianfranco Becchina in 1993, and then through a New York gallery around 2000 (although its movements between those dates are as yet undisclosed).

During the ceremony, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., the District Attorney stated:
“When looters overrun historic sites, mine sacred spaces for prized relics, and peddle stolen property for top dollar, they do so with the implicit endorsement of all those who knowingly trade in stolen antiquities” More research clearly needs to be conducted on how material handled by Becchina passed into the North American market and into the hands of private and public collectors.