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

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 …

Mithras relief from Tor Cervara

A fragmentary relief of Mithras was discovered in 1964 at Tor Cervara on the outskirts of Rome. It was acquired by the Museo Nazionale Romano.

A further fragment of the relief was acquired by the Badisches Landesmueum in Kalrsruhe in 1976. The source was an unstated Swiss dealer. This fragment has been reunited with the rest of the relief [press release].

Today a further fragment of the relief was reunited with the other pieces. This had been recovered during a raid in Sardinia.

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…