Skip to main content

Cultural Nationalism and Cultural Pragmatism

Derek Fincham and Paul Barford have drawn attention to a new paper by Matthew R. Hoffman, 'Cultural pragmatism: a new approach to the international movement of antiquities', Iowa Law Review 95 (2010) 665-94 [download].

Hoffman notes "antiquities have made their way from archeological sites and local collections to private and government collections" (667). There is a huge difference between acquiring material from "old" nineteenth century collections or buying recently-surfaced antiquities on the market. The case of the returning antiquities from major North American museums (Boston MFA; Cleveland Museum of Art; The J. Paul Getty Museum; New York MMA; Princeton University Art Museum) has shown quite clearly that since 1970 (the date of the UNESCO Convention) major institutions have been acquiring material that appears to have been removed by unscientific methods from their archaeological contexts.
  • Gill, David W.J. and Chippindale, Christopher (2006), 'From Boston to Rome: reflections on returning antiquities', International Journal of Cultural Property, 13 (3), 311-31.
  • Gill, David W.J. and Chippindale, Christopher (2007), 'From Malibu to Rome: further developments on the return of antiquities', International Journal of Cultural Property, 14 (2), 205-40.
  • Gill, David W.J. (2009), 'Homecomings: learning from the return of antiquities to Italy', in Noah Charney (ed.), Art and Crime: exploring the dark side of the art world (Santa Barbara: Praeger), 13-25.
How does Hoffman explain the 120 or antiquities that have returned to Italy? Or, indeed, the smaller number that have been returned to Greece? Perhaps Hoffman should read:
  • Watson, Peter (1997), Sotheby's, the inside story (London: Bloomsbury).
  • Watson, Peter and Todeschini, Cecilia (2006), The Medici conspiracy: the illicit journey of looted antiquities from Italy's tomb raiders to the world's great museums (New York: Public Affairs).
  • Gill, David W.J. and Chippindale, Christopher (2007), 'The illicit antiquities scandal: what it has done to classical archaeology collections', American Journal of Archaeology, 111 (3), 571-74.
Hoffman confuses two separate issues: objects that left their countries of origin generations ago (e.g. the Parthenon marbles), and objects that have been ripped from their contexts in a post-1970 world (e.g. the Sarpedon krater).

Hoffman discuss the nature of the debate, commenting, "Many archeologists support these strict measures, believing that suppressing the demand for artifacts will reduce the number of undocumented artifacts in circulation" (671). In fact the recent returns to Italy are, I would suggest, having an impact on the market. Ricardo Elia's study of Apulian pottery could have been discussed against the decreasing number of Apulian pots entering the market in recent years.

  • Elia, Ricardo J. (2001), 'Analysis of the looting, selling, and collecting of Apulian red-figure vases: a quantitative approach', in Neil Brodie, Jennifer Doole, and Colin Renfrew (eds.), Trade in illicit antiquities: the destruction of the world's archaeological heritage (Cambridge: McDonald Institute), 145-53.
Hoffman underestimates the impact of the "Medici conspiracy" and the returns to Italy. Major museums can no longer ignore the issue of recently-surfaced antiquities. But Hoffman suggests:
With their current collections and future ability to obtain new artifacts at risk, the American museum community needed to take action before more source countries chose broad patrimony laws over bilateral agreements and other forms of cooperation. Also, the potential stigma of criminal liability that could attach to existing collections threatened to undermine the public’s trust (685).
The AAMD's decision to embrace the 1970 date for making decisions over acquisitions was not one made out of pragmatism as Hoffman would want us to believe. It was to make sure that there were no more nasty surprises over acquisitions made with a lack of rigour.

Hoffman's discussion of Japan's policy on cultural property (689-90) could have done with a discussion of the European antiquities in the Miho Museum. How did this newly established museum come to acquire recently surfaced antiquities? Does this really reflect "a balanced framework" (692)? This undermines the central part of Hoffman's conclusion:
The classification system of the Japanese Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties offers a model to implement this new doctrine and to combine the resources of American museums and source countries to more effectively protect culturally significant artifacts, while permitting a limited, licit market to both reduce illicit trade and provide additional financing through registration and taxation (694).
Hoffman's article has failed to engage with the current debate over "the international movement of antiquities".



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…