Skip to main content

St Louis Art Museum and AAMD Guidelines

The St Louis Art Museum (SLAM) is a member of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD). In 2008 the AAMD published "2008 Report of the AAMD Subcommittee on the Acquisition of Archaeological Materials and Ancient Art". Guideline G states:
If a member museum, as a result of its continuing research, gains information that establishes another party’s right to ownership of a work, the museum should bring this information to the attention of the party, and if the case warrants, initiate the return of the work to that party, as has been done in the past. In the event that a third party brings to the attention of a member museum information supporting the party’s claim to a work, the museum should respond promptly and responsibly and take whatever steps are necessary to address this claim, including, if warranted, returning the work, as has been done in the past.
The Stanford Archaeology Center has published an image of the Saqqara register apparently showing the mummy mask. It is therefore appropriate to consider Zahi Hawass' claim, rehearsed so clearly in The Riverfront Times in 2006 [see here].

The AAMD Guidelines do not suggest that there should be a limitation on claims. Indeed the Guidelines suggest that AAMD member institutions should have the highest standards of acquistion policies. Kaywin Feldman, president of the Association of Art Museum Directors and director of the Minneapolis Institute of Art, recently raised the issue in a recent letter to the New York Times (see here). She claimed that members of the AAMD "subscribe to the highest principles of collecting and stewardship of their collections". SLAM's decision to initiate legal action over the mask appears to fly in the face of the AAMD's position.

The AAMD Guidelines (A) also suggest:
Member museums should thoroughly research the ownership history of archaeological materials or works of ancient art (individually a “work”) prior to their acquisition, including making a rigorous effort to obtain accurate written documentation with respect to their history, including import and export documents.
Laura E. Young's discussion of SLAM's acquisition of the mask suggest
The St Louis Art Museum's efforts of due diligence inquiry prior to purchase of the Ka-Nefer-Nefer mummy mask are criticized in this research since minimal efforts were taken to establish the facts of the case, particularly in identifying the source and history of the object prior to purchase.
It will be interesting to see if the AAMD speaks out in support of SLAM or if there will be moves to encourage the museum back into negotiations with Egypt's archaeological authorities.

The alternative is that SLAM publishes the "accurate written documentation" relating to the collecting history ("provenance") of the mask.

Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

DR.KWAME OPOKU said…
I hope SLAM does not make the argument, much beloved by retentionists in the Western world, that there has not been any formal or official demand for the sculpture. The Germans have presented such an argument in the case of Nefertiti, the British in the case of the Rosetta stone and the Austrians in the case of Montezuma’s Crown.

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…