Skip to main content

Is the debate about reclaiming cultural property?

Are those involved in discussions over cultural property confusing several issues?

Italy has long been concerned about the destruction of its archaeological record. Tombaroli have been entering Etruscan burial chambers for centuries. But the organised, systematic and widespread looting of archaeological sites meant that action had to be taken. The surfacing of the Sarpedon krater in New York was a visual remind of archaeological contexts torn apart to supply the market.

And it was not just Etruscan tombs. Cemeteries in southern Italy were being ripped apart to supply the demand for Apulian pottery.

Turning to Greece, the Early Bronze Age cemeteries of the Cyclades were being pillaged to supply the demand for marble Cycladic figures. On Crete Bronze Age sites were worked over to supply the demands of the market. And in Macedonia, elite tombs served as a supply for high quality items to be sent to market.

So the return of the Sarpedon krater, Apulian pots, Macedonian gold wreaths, or bronze kraters to countries like Greece and Italy send out a clear message: museums and collectors should not handle recently-surfaced antiquities. The collector-driven market leads to the destruction of the finite archaeological record.

Then there is the issue of material stolen from archaeological museums and stores. Mummy masks and bronze statues that have been raided from archaeological collections should be returned.

There are also the long-standing issues that predate the 1970 UNESCO Convention. What about Nefertiti? What about the Rosetta stone? What about the Parthenon marbles? What about the Bubon bronze statues? What about the Benin bronzes? Here the issue is less about looting than the appropriate place to display key archaeological objects. Are the architectural sculptures from a fifth-century BCE temple best displayed in London or within line of sight of the building on which they were once placed?

Such issues also raise concerns about how to preserve our cosmopolitan cultural property. Should there be restrictions on the movement of archaeological material (including coins) across international boundaries? How can those who handle archaeological material (including coins) ensure that they are not handling the proceeds of recent looting? How can we protect our past for the benefit of future generations?

Is the debate about reclaiming cultural property?

Not really. The issues revolve around the material and intellectual consequences of looting.

Image
© David Gill



Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

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 …

George Ortiz collection to be displayed in London

Christie's is due to display part of the former collection of the late George Ortiz in London in a non-selling show to mark the 25th anniversary of the exhibition at the Royal Academy. There is a statement on the Christie's website ("The Ortiz Collection — ‘proof that the past is in all of us’"). Max Bernheimer is quoted: ‘Ortiz was one of the pre-eminent collectors of his day’.

We recall the associations with Ortiz such as the Horiuchi sarcophagus, the Hestiaios stele fragment, the marble funerary lekythos, and the Castor and Pollux.

Bernheimer will, no doubt, wish to reflect on the Royal Academy exhibition by reading Christopher Chippindale and David W. J. Gill. 2000. "Material consequences of contemporary classical collecting." American Journal of Archaeology 104: 463-511 [JSTOR].

Bernheimer will probably want to re-read the two pieces by Peter Watson that appeared in The Times: , "Ancient art without a history" and "Fakes - the artifice b…

Tutankhamun, Christie's and rigorous due dligence

It was announced today that the Egyptian authorities would be taking legal action against Christie's over the sale of the head of Tutankhamun ("Egypt to sue Christie's to retrieve £4.7m Tutankhamun bust", BBC News 9 July 2019).

The BBC reports:
Egypt's former antiquities chief, Zahi Hawass, said the bust appeared to have been "stolen" in the 1970s from the Temple of Karnak. "The owners have given false information," he told AFP news agency. "They have not shown any legal papers to prove its ownership." Christie's maintain the history of the piece as follows:
It stated that Germany's Prince Wilhelm von Thurn und Taxis reputedly had it in his collection by the 1960s, and that it was acquired by an Austrian dealer in 1973-4. However the family of von Thurn und Taxis claim that the head was never in that collection [see here].

Christie's reject any hint of criticism:
"Christie's would not and do not sell any work whe…