Skip to main content

A view from Princeton: "render unto Egypt what is Egypt’s"

There has been an interesting debate about cultural property in the Daily Princetonian. This is particularly significant given the return of antiquities from the Princeton University Art Museum to Italy as well as the apparent Italian investigation into acquisitions derived from Edoardo Almagià.

Aaron Applbaum started the debate with a review of historic acquisitions ("Keep the artifacts as they are", April 12, 2001). The focus is on monuments such as the Parthenon marbles, although there is mention of more recent claims on Egyptian material in European collections. Applbaum resorts to the argument of precedent.
Essentially, returning these artifacts would be doubly detrimental: it would set a precedent that could lead to the liquidation of the collections of museums, and, by decentralizing these important artifacts, would leave the world culturally poorer. Returning artifacts would place them in geographical and cultural ghettos, whereby Greek sculptures could only be viewed in Greece, or Egyptian mummies in Egypt.
Yet Applbaum does not seek to differentiate between these older acquisitions and objects that surfaced since the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

Lily Yu (who held an internship with Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities) has responded with a more nuanced piece ("The obligation to repatriate", April 20, 2011).
While the majority of curators and collectors purchase conscientiously, checking for legal export documents and clean provenances, many do not. When a looted item is purchased, even if the transaction occurs in good faith and with due diligence, there is an ethical and legal obligation to repatriate.
The one thing that the Medici Conspiracy has taught us is that museums, private collectors, dealers and auction-houses turned a blind eye to significant looting to supply the market. Yu reminds us of the position of Princeton in this sad tale. Indeed it needs to be remembered that Italy did not insist on the return of every object identified by photographs and documentation. (It should be noted that Princeton has not disclosed the collecting histories of the objects unlike Boston's MFA or the J. Paul Getty Museum.)

Yu closes in a strong way:
In this postcolonial world, we must recognize the sovereignty of other states not only in self-government but also in the management of their cultural patrimonies. While recognizing the importance of the legal acquisition of antiquities by museums, we cannot forget our obligations to those countries that have been plundered of their pasts, and we ought, where it is legally or ethically required of us, to repatriate — to render unto Egypt what is Egypt’s.

Will Princeton be resolving the issue over the Almagià antiquities?

And what about disclosing the collecting history for the silver plaque with a Nike?


Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

DR.KWAME OPOKU said…
How can anybody to-day make such a declaration?
“Essentially, returning these artifacts would be doubly detrimental: it would set a precedent that could lead to the liquidation of the collections of museums, and, by decentralizing these important artifacts, would leave the world culturally poorer. Returning artifacts would place them in geographical and cultural ghettos, whereby Greek sculptures could only be viewed in Greece or Egyptian mummies in Egypt”.
Are all the museum collections of doubtful legality and legitimacy? And how does the world become “culturally poorer” because an Egyptian artefact has been returned to Egypt? It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that if Greece asks for one Greek object to be returned to Athens, then this implies that all Greek objects are to be centralized in Athens. Have we not passed this stage in the debate on restitution? Attempts should not be made to create the impression that these issues are being debated for the first time. Western retentionists should present better arguments and stop creating the impression that one Benin mask taken out of the British Museum will set in motion a trend that would lead to emptying the museum of all its 8 million objects.
Kwame Opoku.
David Gill said…
Kwame
Such a mistaken view is redeemed by the response from a fellow Princeton student.
Best wishes
David
David Gill said…
Just to clarify, Applbaum's comments have been refuted by Lily Yu.

Popular posts from this blog

The Getty Kouros: "The moral is, never ever buy a piece without a provenance"

In the wake of the 1992 Athens conference to discuss the Getty kouros (85.AA.40), one of the delegates, a "distinguished" American museum curator, was quoted ("Greek sculpture; the age-old question", The Economist June 20, 1992):
The moral is, never ever buy a piece without a provenance.
The recent discussions about the return of antiquities from North American museums to Italy and Greece may seem far removed from the acquisition of what appears to be a forged archaic Greek sculpture in the 1980s. However, there are some surprising overlaps.

The statue arrived at the Getty on September 18, 1983 in seven pieces. True (1993: 11) subsequently asked two questions:
Where was it found? As it was said to have been in a Swiss private collection for fifty years, why had it never been reassembled, though it was virtually complete?
A similar statue surfacing in the 1930s
A decision was taken to acquire the kouros in 1985. The official Getty line at the time (and reported in Russell…

Symes and a Roman medical set

Pierre Bergé & Associés of Paris are offering a rare Roman bronze medical set (16 May 2018, lot 236). Its recorded history is: "Ancienne collection Hishiguro, Tokyo, 1992". The catalogue entry helpfully informs us that the set probably came from a burial ("Cette trousse de chirurgien a probablement été découverte dans une sépulture ...").

The set appears to be the one that has been identified by Dr Christos Tsirogannis from an image in the Schinousa archive thus linking it to Robin Symes.

Given that the catalogue entry suggests that this piece came from a funerary context and that the history of the piece can only be traced back to 1992 (and not to 1970), questions are being raised about the set's origins.

What due diligence was conducted on the medical set prior to offering it for sale? Did Symes sell the set to Hishiguro? How did Symes obtain the set? Who sold it to him?

I understand that the appropriate authorities in France are being informed about the …

The Minoan Larnax and the Michael C. Carlos Museum

I was recently asked to comment on the acquisition of recently surfaced antiquities in Greece as part of an interview. One of the examples I gave was the Minoan larnax that was acquired by the Michael C. Carlos Museum. Although this piece has been discussed in the Greek press, the museum has not yet responded to the apparent identification in the Becchina archive.

Is the time now right for the Michael C. Carlos Museum or the wider authorities at Emory University to negotiate the return of this impressive piece so that it can be placed on display in a museum in Greece?