Skip to main content

Archaeological Loans to North American Museums

I have written about the loan of archaeological material to North American museums before. I have had cause to contact the director of a major east coast museum this week to ask about the collecting history of a particular piece.

This gives me the opportunity to remind readers of the AAMD's position on archaeological loans. These can be found in "Report of the AAMD Subcommittee on Incoming Loans of Archaeological Material and Ancient Art" (February 27, 2006) [link].

A number of "Statement of Principles" are made:
I.B. AAMD recognizes that decisions relating to loans of archaeological materials and ancient art can be legally and ethically complex, and require weighing a number of legitimate, and sometimes competing, interests and priorities.

I.C. AAMD deplores the illicit and unscientific excavation of archaeological materials and ancient art from archaeological sites, the destruction or defacing of ancient monuments, and the theft of works of art from individuals, museums, or other repositories.

I.D. AAMD is committed to the principle that all borrowing be done according to the highest standards of ethical and professional practice. These Guidelines reinforce the need for transparency in the loan process and due diligence in researching proposed loans.

I.E. AAMD supports the open exchange of information among researchers and institutions as they collaborate on loans, exhibitions and other scholarly projects. Through this process, the most complete, accurate and useful information about works of art becomes available to a broad public.

I am particularly struck that the AAMD recongises that as objects are displayed this may stimulate further research and allow a more full collecting history to be reconstructed.

I.G. AAMD recognizes that archaeological material and works of ancient art for which provenance information is incomplete or unobtainable may deserve to be publicly displayed, conserved, studied, and published because of their rarity, historical importance, and aesthetic merit. Importantly, in addition to inspiring fresh scholarship, the display of such works in public museums may serve to facilitate the discovery of further information regarding their ownership and provenance history.

The AAMD speciaifcally used 1970 as a benchmark for loans:

In recognition of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, adopted in November 1970, member museums should not borrow any archaeological material or works of ancient art known to have been “stolen from a museum, or a religious, or secular public monument or similar institution” (Convention, Article 7b) after November 1970. In addition, member museums should not borrow any archaeological material or works of ancient art known to have been part of an official archaeological excavation and to have been removed after November 1970 in contravention of the laws of the country of origin.
Member museums should abide by the preceding paragraph regardless of any applicable statutes of limitation and notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. did not ratify the Convention until 1983.

In a section on "Due diligence and research" the guidelines state:
In the course of considering possible loans of archaeological material and ancient art, member museums should inquire into their provenance history, seeking to obtain all relevant information from the lender, and an appropriate warranty of their legal ownership of the work. In some cases, the museum may decide that it is responsible and prudent to make further inquiries from other possible sources of information and/or databases.

The AAMD accepts that collecting histories may be incomplete and makes allowance for this:
Even after rigorous research, it may not be possible to obtain complete and/or independently verifiable information on the relevant provenance history of a proposed loan. AAMD recognizes that the exhibition of such a work in a public institution dedicated to the display, conservation, study, and interpretation of works of art may best serve the interests of the object, the culture it represents and the public. In particular, this may be the case where such public exhibition makes possible important advances in scholarship and/or facilitates the emergence of new information on the ownership and provenance history of the work.


Long-term loans are treated in a different way:
Potential long-term loans (i.e. loans not part of visiting exhibitions) with incomplete relevant provenance histories should be evaluated under criteria comparable to those for acquisitions (see 2004 Report, Section II, E).

The 2004 "Report of the AAMD Task Force on the Acquisition of Archaeological Materials and Ancient Art" states [pdf]:
Even after rigorous research, it may not be possible to obtain sufficient information on the recent history of a proposed acquisition to determine securely whether the acquisition would comply with applicable law and the aforementioned Guidelines. In such cases, museums must use their professional judgment in determining whether to proceed with the acquisition, in accordance with the Statement of Principles above, recognizing that the work of art, the culture it represents, scholarship, and the public may be served best through the acquisition of the work of art by a public institution dedicated to the conservation, exhibition, study, and interpretation of works of art.
Image
Head from Roman marble statuette. The Schinoussa Archive.



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 …

The scale of the returns to Italy

I have been busy working on an overview, "Returning Archaeological Objects to Italy". The scale of the returns to Italy from North American collections and galleries is staggering: in excess of 350 objects. This is clearly the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the material that has surfaced on the market without a history that can be traced back to the period before 1970. 

I will provide more information in due course, but the researcher is a reminder that we need to take due diligence seriously when it comes to making acquisitions.

Stele returns to Greece

The Hellenic Ministry of Culture has announced (Saturday 8 September 2018) that a stele that had been due to be auctioned at Sotheby's in London in June 2017 has been returned to Greece (Friday 7 September 2018). The identification had been made by Cambridge-based forensic archaeologist Dr Christos Tsirogiannis.

It appeared that the stele had been supplied with a falsified history as its presence with Becchina until 1990 contradicted the published sale catalogue entry. It then moved into the hands of George Ortiz.

A year ago it was suggested that Sotheby's should contact the Greek authorities. Those negotiations appear to have concluded successfully.

The 4th century BC stele fragment, with the personal name, Hestiaios, will be displayed in the Epigraphic Museum in Athens. It appears to have come from a cemetery in Attica.