AIA and St Louis

The Archaeological Institute of America has issued a statement about the sale of antiquities by the St Louis branch of the organisation ("New AIA Statement on the St. Louis Society", November 4, 2014). The AIA's Governing Body has highlighted three reasons why the St Louis branch should not sell (and I have restructured the format):

• First, the objects from Egypt were entrusted to the Society by the British School of Archaeology in Egypt in 1914 for the benefit of the citizens of St. Louis and were intended to be placed in a public institution where they would be used for public education and scholarly study. Selling them breaks this fundamental commitment, now a century old. The citizens of St. Louis have been deprived of part of their legitimate heritage. 
• Second, the objects were obtained by division from an authorized excavation, thus enhancing their scholarly and educational value. Such objects should remain in the public domain, not sold off in a manner that risks removing them from public view. 
• Third, the actions of the St. Louis Society have seriously compromised the Archaeological Institute of America itself as an organization that upholds the value of preserving, studying and presenting the record of the human past for the benefit of future generations. 

The Egyptian objects on sale at Bonhams last month were withdrawn and purchased by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.

The St Louis Art Museum clearly feels that it wants to display Egyptian antiquities and even went as far as acquiring a mummy mask that subsequently turned out to have been excavated at Saqqara (and allegedly removed from the archaeological store).

Now some Mesoamerican pieces are due to be sold by Bonhams in New York.

The ArtNewspaper has drawn attention to the issue ("St Louis society attempts second sale of antiquities", November 6, 2014). Washington Paid Lobbyist Peter Tompa has now added his voice to the debate (as a comment to the ArtNewspaper):

In the golden age of archaeology, archaeologists were collectors and some wealthy collectors were amateur archaeologists. Now, its seen as heresy for an AIA chapter to sell a well-provenance piece which has somehow become inalienable for the ideologues that run the organization. Hopefully, this episode will prompt a much needed discussion of the issue and how the AIA's positions have only alienated itself from others who also care about preserving artifacts from the past.

He conveniently overlooks the AIA's position in order to promote the position maintained by those organisations who retain the services of his law firm. I note that the IAPN has increased its contribution to Bailey & Ehrenberg by $10,0000 in 2014.

Tompa's incautious language ("heresy", "ideologues", "alienated") highlights the insecure position held by the lobbyist.

I hope that the St Louis Society realise their responsibility to retain the objects for future generations in St Louis. It is not too late for their officers to withdraw the pieces from the sale.

Negotiating Culture: New Book Published

Laetitia La Follette, Vice President for Professional Responsibilities at the AIA, has edited a new book, Negotiating Culture: Heritage, Ownership and Intellectual Property (University of Massachusetts Press, 2013) [Publisher].

Rival claims of ownership or control over various aspects of culture are a regular feature of our twenty-first-century world. Such debates are shaping disciplines as diverse as anthropology and archaeology, art history and museum studies, linguistics and genetics. 

This provocative collection of essays—a series of case studies in cultural ownership by scholars from a range of fields—explores issues of cultural heritage and intellectual property in a variety of contexts, from contests over tangible artifacts as well as more abstract forms of culture such as language and oral traditions to current studies of DNA and genes that combine nature and culture, and even new, nonproprietary models for the sharing of digital technologies. Each chapter sets the debate in its historical and disciplinary context and suggests how the approaches to these issues are changing or should change. 

One of the most innovative aspects of the volume is the way each author recognizes the social dimensions of group ownership and demonstrates the need for negotiation and new models. The collection as a whole thus challenges the reader to reevaluate traditional ways of thinking about cultural ownership and to examine the broader social contexts within which negotiation over the ownership of culture is taking place.

La Folette's essay is on "The trial of Marion True and changing policies for Classical Antiquities in American Museums".

Raiders of the Lost Art: a Conversation

Readers of "Looting Matters" are welcome to attend a celebration in Ipswich (England) of the Outstanding Public Service Award by the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA). The evening (2 May 2012) will take the form of a conversation with BBC journalist Mark Murphy.

Further details here. Please note that you are asked to reserve a place.

Ipswich is just over 1 hour on the train from London Liverpool Street, and 1 hour 20 minutes from Cambridge. University Campus Suffolk is a 15 minute walk from the station. [Map]

AIA Award: Does Looting Matter?

Photo: © Neil Salter

AIA Outstanding Public Service Award

AIA President, AIA Members, I am immensely grateful to receive this award with its emphasis on public service. Archaeology is not a private discipline, it is carried out in the public arena. And archaeologists seek to serve by valuing our shared—dare I use the word cosmopolitan?—cultural heritage whether it lies stratified and as yet unexcavated, or if it is on display in the great public—should that be encyclopedic?—museums around the world.

I can place the origins of my research to a post-lunch conversation in the rooms of the then reviews editor of Antiquity in King’s College, Cambridge. My co-researcher, Christopher Chippindale, and I were looking at images of recently surfaced Gandharan antiquities that had been photographed in St James’ Park in London. We were outraged, our attention turned to the intellectual consequences of looting, and we started work on our paper on Cycladic figures published by the American Journal of Archaeology.

Last year I moved from Swansea University to be professor of archaeological heritage at University Campus Suffolk. So will you permit me to make three very short points based on those initials?

U-Universal. The on-going fall-out from the Medici Conspiracy has shown the weaknesses of acquisition policies by so-called universal museums. Yet why has a major North American museum failed to co-operate with the Hellenic Republic of Greece over recently acquired objects identified by photographic evidence in its collection? Why has another major civic museum displayed an archaic krater that appears to come from Koreschnica in FYROM?

C-Compliance. Recent sales by a New York auction house and a New York antiquities gallery appear to have included material featured in several of the photographic archives seized by police from dealers in Switzerland and Greece. Why have the sales continued? Will dealers develop a more rigorous due diligence search prior to sales?

S-Suffolk. A set of Roman bronzes were removed from the site of Icklingham in Suffolk, to the north of where I now live. They were acquired by a major New York private collector, and subsequently included in an exhibition at Harvard. The collector has returned material to Greece and to Italy, as well as indirectly to Turkey through the good offices of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. Will the present proprietor of the Icklingham bronzes, who claims to have an interest in archaeology, return them for display in their county museum?

As I close, I need to thank a small group of people: my co-researchers in particular Christopher Chippindale and Christos Tsirogiannis; my Swansea colleague Christopher Hall who drew my attention to the potential of Web 2.0; and my wife Caroline who has supported my work for over a quarter of a century.

Does Looting Matter? Yes, as it threatens the finite archaeological record, and it undermines our ability to interpret the past.

AIA Ceremony

Photo: © Neil Salter

I am honoured to receive the Archaeological Institute of America's Outstanding Public Service Award.

Details of the ceremony can be found here.

Does Looting Matter?

Those attending the AIA Conference in Philadelphia are warmly invited to attend the Roundtable Discussion Group, "Does Looting Matter?".

Date: Saturday 7 January 2012. Time: 11.30 am - 1.00 pm. Franklin Hall

Here are some ideas for the discussion:

Why should archaeologists care about looting?

First, there are the material consequences: archaeological sites are disturbed and wrecked.

Second, there are the intellectual consequences: the loss of information that hinders the interpretation of the objects.

The last five years have seen renewed interest in the damage to the archaeological record of Italy. Well over 100 objects have been returned from North American public and private collections to the Italian state, many of them identified from photographic images seized in the Geneva Freeport. Why did high profile institutions continue to acquire recently surfaced objects in spite of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property? Are the present Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) guidelines having an impact on acquisition policies for archaeological material?

Objects identified from the Geneva Polaroids have been surfacing on the London and New York markets in recent years. How have galleries and auction houses reacted to requests to withdraw material from sale? Is there a new ethical framework for the selling objects? The investigations into the returns have raised further issues. They include the fabrication of collecting histories or “provenance”. Objects have been placed in genuine but poorly documented collections to present a believable veneer of truth.

The investigations have also raised concerns about how objects passed through the market and the role of scholars in providing attributions. The place of so-called “orphans”, or fragments from pots, have started to shed light on how these networks operated.

What are the outstanding issues? How should museums respond to claims on material in their collections? How can the due diligence process be improved and be made more rigorous? Do museums policies cover the long-term loan of archaeological material? What steps can “source” countries take to reduce looting? Would a “licit market” make a difference? What place is there for discussion using the “new media” and Web 2.0 technologies?

Join the debate!

Bulgaria, Belize and the MOU

The Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) has posted details of the proposed MOUs with Bulgaria and Belize. Links to the online submission process can be found here.

SAFE has published a useful set of links about Bulgaria.

Why did North American museums acquire recently surfaced antiquities?

I have been reflecting on how major North American museums managed to get themselves into a situation where they acquired recently surfaced antiquities. Indeed they have exposed themselves to criticism from foreign governments, academia and the media.

I presume the motivation was to build a collection of classical antiquities that would rival other museums. Curatorial careers were built on the finest Greek pot, or should that be vase?, or the most unusual archaic marble statue. but did those curators never stop and think about the sources? Had these genuinely unknown objects really resided in some anonymous villa beside Lake Geneva? Or did these same curators suspect that they were derived from the deliberate destruction of archaeological sites? But did they care? Or were they just naive?

The move to address this problem was brought to the world's attention by bodies such as UNESCO and the AIA. From the North American museum community we should also note Maxwell Anderson's pioneering and visionary EUMILOP scheme.

We continue to note a significant lack of transparency from within the North American museum community over the failure to address concerns over recently acquired and loaned objects.

Have some of the legal and art historical commentators forgotten that there continue to be a number of unresolved issues?

But I should return to the question. Why were these objects acquired? Was it because there was a disregard for the information derived from careful scientific excavation?


| |

Jamie and Louise: Looting Matters

I enjoyed talking to Jamie and Louise on BBC Radio Wales earlier today. The programme is available on the BBC iPlayer here. (The interview was between 11 am and 11.30 am.)

We were able to cover the significance of the seizure of the Medici dossier, the appearance of recently surfaced antiquities on the London market, looting in antiquity, and the Icklingham bronzes from Suffolk, England. There was a short discussion of the impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review on the Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales.

Public Service Award: Further Comment

I started Saturday sitting in the BBC studio in Alexandra Road being interviewed for "Good Morning Wales" about my award from AIA (available on BBC iPlayer). This was serendipitous as not only was this the location of many of Dylan Thomas' broadcasts (see BBC) but Swansea was hosting an International Poetry Festival with visits to Dylan's birthplace and to Laugharne. The BBC subsequently posted the AIA story on their website ("Dr David Gill recognised for illicit antique fight", June 19, 2011).

There is a feature article in the Western Mail (Cardiff): "‘Indiana Jones in reverse’ wins archaeology ‘Oscar'", June 18, 2011).

I am very grateful for the many messages (and creative Tweets!) of congratulation. Thank you.

Raiders of the Lost Artefacts

There is a short news story on the AIA Award in the Swansea Evening Post ("US honour for tracking raiders of lost artefacts", June 17, 2011).

AIA Award: Press Release

Swansea University has issued a short press release about the AIA Award.

Research publications on the antiquities trade

Here is a selection of some of the key works relating to my work on the antiquities trade and the looting question:

• (with K. Butcher) ‘Mischievous pastime or historical science?’, review article of Minerva, in Antiquity 64 (1990), 946-50. [ISSN 0003-598X] [online]
• (with Christopher Chippindale) ‘Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladic figures’, American Journal of Archaeology 97 (1993), 601-59. [ISSN 0002-9114] [online]
• Commentary (with C. Chippindale) on C. Morris, ‘Hands up for the individual! The role of attribution studies in Aegean prehistory’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3 (1993), 57-58 (pp. 41-66). [ISSN 0959-7743]
• (with Kevin Butcher) ‘The Director, the Dealer, the Goddess and her Champions: the Acquisition of the Fitzwilliam Goddess’, American Journal of Archaeology 97 (1993), 383-401. [ISSN 0002-9114] [online]
• ‘Publishing unprovenanced artifacts: further observations’, Electronic Antiquity 2.2 (1994). [online]
• ‘Sotheby’s, sleaze and subterfuge: inside the antiquities trade’, review article of P. Watson, Sotheby’s: inside story (London: Bloomsbury, 1997), in Antiquity 71 (1997), 468-71. [ISSN 0003-598X] [online]
• Review article of Masterpieces of the J. Paul Getty Museum: Antiquities (Los Angeles 1997), in Bryn Mawr Classical Review (1998). [ISSN 1055-7660] [online]
• (with C. Chippindale) ‘Material consequences of contemporary collecting’, American Journal of Archaeology 104.3 (2000), 463-511. [ISSN 0002-9114] [online] Supplementary tables available on-line at http://www.ajaonline.org
• (with Christopher Chippindale, Emily Salter, and Christian Hamilton) ‘Collecting the classical world: first steps in a quantitative history’, International Journal of Cultural Property 10 .1 (2001), 1-31. [ISSN 0940-7391] [online]
• (with Christopher Chippindale) ‘On-line auctions: a new venue for the antiquities market’, Culture Without Context 9 (2001), 4-13. [online]
• (with Christopher Chippindale) ‘The trade in looted antiquities and the return of cultural property: a British parliamentary inquiry’, International Journal of Cultural Property 11.1 (2002), 50-64. [ISSN 0940-7391] [online]
• Review article of Pat Getz-Gentle, Personal Styles in Early Cycladic Sculpture (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2001), in Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2002). [ISSN 1055-7660] [online]
• (and Neil Brodie) ‘Looting: an international view’, in L. J. Zimmerman, K. D. Vitelli, and J. Hollowell-Zimmer (eds.), Ethical Issues in Archaeology (Walnut Creek: AltaMira; Society for American Archaeology, 2003), 31-44.
• Review of Oscar White Muscarella, The Lie Became Great: The Forgery of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures (Studies in the Art and Archaeology of Antiquity vol. 1; Groningen: Styx, 2000), in American Journal of Archaeology 107, 2 (2003), 285-86. [online]
• Review of Vinnie Nørskov, Greek Vases in New Contexts. The Collecting and Trading of Greek Vases - An Aspect of the Modern Reception of Antiquity (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2002), in Culture Without Context 12 (Spring 2003), 21-23. [online]
• (with Joan Padgham) ‘”One Find of Capital Importance”: a reassessment of the statue of User from Knossos’, Annual of the British School at Athens 100 (2005), 41-59.
• (with Christopher Chippindale) ‘From Boston to Rome: reflections on returning antiquities’, International Journal of Cultural Property 13 (2006), 311-31. [online]
• (with Christopher Chippindale) ‘From Malibu to Rome: further developments on the return of antiquities’, International Journal of Cultural Property 14 (2007), 205-40. [online]
• Review article of Stephen L. Dyson, In Pursuit of Ancient Pasts: a History of Classical Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (New Haven, Conn.; London: Yale University Press, 2006), in Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2007). [ISSN 1055-7660] [online]
• (with Christopher Chippindale) ‘The illicit antiquities scandal: what it has done to classical archaeology collections’, review article of P. Watson and C. Todeschini, The Medici conspiracy: the illicit journey of looted antiquities from Italy's tomb raiders to the world's great museums (New York: Public Affairs, 2006), in American Journal of Archaeology 111 (2007), 571-74.
• Review of Peggy Sotirakopoulou, The "Keros Hoard": myth or reality? Searching for the lost pieces of a puzzle (Athens: N.P. Goulandris Foundation - Museum of Cycladic Art, 2005), in American Journal of Archaeology 111, 1 (2007), 163-65.
• Review of E. Robson, L. Treadwell, and L. Gosden (eds.), Who owns objects? The ethics and politics of collecting cultural artefacts (Oxford: Oxbow, 2006); and N. Brodie, M. M. Kersel, C. Luke, and K. W. Tubb (eds.), 2006. Archaeology, cultural heritage, and the antiquities trade (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2006), in Journal of Field Archaeology 32.1 (2007), 103-06.
• (with Christopher Chippindale) ‘South Italian pottery in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston acquired since 1983’, Journal of Field Archaeology 33, 4 (2008), 462-72.
• ‘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 Press, 2009), 13-25.
• ‘Context matters: archaeological and antiquities crime’, The Journal of Art Crime 1, 1 (Spring 2009), 43-46. [ISSN 1947-5934 / 1947-5926]
• ‘Context matters: Looting in the Balkans’, The Journal of Art Crime 2, 1 (Fall 2009), 63-66. [ISSN 1947-5934 / 1947-5926]
• ‘Looting matters for classical antiquities: contemporary issues in archaeological ethics’, Present Pasts 1 (2009), 77-104. [ISSN 1759-2941] [online]
• Review article of James B. Cuno, Who owns antiquity? Museums and the battle over our ancient heritage (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008), in American Journal of Archaeology 113, 1 (January 2009). [online]
• Review of James Cuno, Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the battle over our ancient heritage (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008) and Sharon Waxman, Loot: The battle over the stolen treasures of the ancient world (Times Books, 2008), in The Journal of Art Crime 1, 1 (Spring 2009), 65-66. [ISSN 1947-5934 / 1947-5926]
• Exhibition review: ‘Nostoi: December 2007, Palazzo del Quirinale, Rome’, in The Journal of Art Crime 1, 1 (Spring 2009), 70-71. [ISSN 1947-5934 / 1947-5926]
• Exhibition review: ‘L’Arma per l’Arte. Antologia di Meraviglie, September 2009, Castel Sant’Angelo, Rome’, in The Journal of Art Crime 2, 1 (Fall 2009), 95-96. [ISSN 1947-5934 / 1947-5926]
• Review of James Cuno (ed.), Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate Over Antiquities (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), in The Journal of Art Crime 2, 1 (Fall 2009), 99-100. [ISSN 1947-5934 / 1947-5926]
• ‘Collecting Histories and the Market for Classical Antiquities’, The Journal of Art Crime 3, 1 (2010) 3-10. [ISSN 1947-5934 / 1947-5926]
• ‘Context matters: Italy and the US: Reviewing Cultural Property Agreements’, The Journal of Art Crime 3, 1 (2010) 81-85. [ISSN 1947-5934 / 1947-5926]
• ‘The Returns to Italy from North America: An Overview’, The Journal of Art Crime 3, 1 (2010) 105-09. [ISSN 1947-5934 / 1947-5926]
• ‘The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the archaeology of England and Wales?’, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 20 (2010) 1-11. [ISSN 0965-9315] [online] With responses from: Trevor Austin (‘The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the Archaeology of England and Wales? A Response’, 12-15), Paul Barford (‘Archaeology, Collectors and Preservation: a Reply to David Gill’, 16-23), Gabriel Moshenska (‘Portable Antiquities, Pragmatism and the “Precious Things”’, 24-27), Colin Renfrew (‘Comment on the Paper by David Gill’, 28-29), and Sally Worrell (‘The Crosby Garrett Helmet’, 30-32).
• ‘The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the archaeology of England and Wales? Reply to Austin, Barford, Moshenska, Renfrew and Worrell’, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 20 (2010) 33-40. [ISSN 0965-9315] [online]
• ‘Context matters. Greece and the U.S.: reviewing cultural property agreements’, The Journal of Art Crime 4 (2010) 73-76.

A full bibliography is available via here.

Archaeological Institute of America Award

© David Gill

I am extremely honoured to learn that I have been selected to be the 2012 recipient of the Archaeological Institute of America’s (AIA) Outstanding Public Service Award.

The criteria for the award are:

The Outstanding Public Service Award recognizes exceptional contributions that promote public understanding of, interest in, and support for archaeology and the preservation of the archaeological record.

The award recognises my "ongoing efforts to educate both professional archaeologists and the public at large on the threats posed by the international antiquities trade".

I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my research colleagues Dr Christopher Chippindale and Christos Tsirogiannis.

Postscript
The announcement of this award first appeared on the AIA's Facebook page.

Looting Matters: Protecting the Archaeological Heritage of Greece

Looting Matters: Protecting the Archaeological Heritage of Greece

Comments on the proposed MOU between the US and Greece, including quotes from Jack L. Davis, Director of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (ASCSA), and Sebastian Heath, Vice President for Professional Responsibilities, Archaeological Institute of America.

Protecting the archaeological heritage of Greece

Sebastian Heath, the Vice President for Professional Responsibilities at the Archaeological Institute of America, has circulated a statement about the proposed MOU with Greece.

He writes:

The United States' Cultural Property Advisory Committee has asked for comment on a proposed Memorandum of Understanding between Greece and the United States that will help protect Greece's archaeological heritage. The deadline for submitting comments is Sept. 22.

You can read about the proposed MoU at http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html (where Greece's formal name "The Hellenic Republic" is used).

The Archaeological Institute of America has established a page at http://archaeological.org/cpac, which gives more information on MoUs in general, and on how to submit comments this round. Cribbing from that page:

IMPORTANT NOTE:
Do not send in your letter by regular mail. First class postage goes through security clearing and can take weeks to reach the State Department.
Letters can be submitted online by visiting the website http://regulations.gov. Enter the docket number "DOS–2010–0339" into the "Enter Keyworld or ID" field and click "Search." In the search results select the check box for "Notices"—this will filter the results so that only the official notice is showing. Finally, click on "submit a comment" under actions.

Heath adds:

It is important to stress in your comments that Greece's archaeological resources are under threat from the illicit trade in antiquities. David Gill, of the blog Looting Matters, has links to his coverage of the issue at:
http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/09/protecting-archaeological-record-of.html


Image
Messene. © David Gill

Protecting the archaeological record of Greece

The Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) has launched a website that explains how to submit comments to the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC).

I have elsewhere provided links to the request by the Greek Government for import restrictions.

Do you need to learn more to make an informed submission to CPAC? First, read an earlier overview of stories relating to Greece (June 2009).

Here is a selection of some of the posts that are relevant to Greece:


Attica

• Funerary stela
• Marble lekythos

Corinth

• Kouroi: update
• Corinthian pottery

Macedonia

• Antiquities seized
• Bronze krater returned
• Gold funerary wreath

Cycladic

• Keros haul material at auction

Crete

• Minoan larnax in New York
• Minoan larnax in Houston
• Minoan larnax in Atlanta
• Statue from Gortyn

Byzantine material

• Byzantine material returned to Greece
• Theft from Byzantine church at Olympia

Coins

• Denarius
• Octodrachm seized in Switzerland
• Coins seized in Macedonia

Other material

• The Atlanta pithos
• Gold wreath in London auction
• Antiquities seized in Northern Greece
• Antiquities returned from Belgium, Germany and the UK
• Antiquities returned from Budapest
• Shelby White returns antiquities to Greece
• The Preveza athlete
• Radical collectors and the Aidonia Treasure
• Material returned to Greece from the J. Paul Getty Museum
• Greece and Italy: joint agreement

The Schinoussa archive

• Work by Christos Tsirogiannis

Image
Messene © David Gill

Loans from Italy: The Chimaera from Arezzo

One of the positive things to emerge from the return of antiquities to Italy from various North American public museums has been the willingness of Italian authorities to loan objects in return. These include museums that have returned objects (e.g. Boston's Museum of Fine Art, the Cleveland Museum of Art, and New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art) as well as those that have requested items (e.g. Indianapolis Museum of Art).  It also makes Kaywin Feldman's submission to CPAC outdated (and see earlier comments).

Michael Brand had talked about the Chimaera from Arezzo as he was leaving the J. Paul Getty Museum [press kit]. The Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) has now published an online museum review by Beth Cohen. This shows the bronze in its temporary installation while on loan from the Museum Archeologico Nazionale in Firenze. Cohen makes the point:

Focusing on this venerable masterpiece, the J. Paul Getty Museum’s intriguing boutique exhibition, which occupies a single gallery of the splendid Getty Villa, is the first fruit of an ongoing international association with Florence’s National Archaeological Museum. Their collaboration, which will include large loan exhibitions of ancient bronze statuary and Etruscan art, is one positive ramification of the separate agreement between the Italian Ministry of Culture and the J. Paul Getty Trust after the latter’s commitment to return 40 antiquities from the Getty Museum’s Villa Collection to Italy.

The exhibition includes the display of a number of coins also on loan.

The AIA should be praised for drawing attention to some of the fruit of the cultural exchange in this post-Medici Conspiracy period. The loan also emphasises the importance of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the US and Italy.

Reference
Cohen, B. 2010. "New light on a master bronze from Etruria." American Journal of Archaeology 114. [pdf]

Almagià: "The museum has a right to collect; the dealers have a right to deal"

In June I noted the new Italian investigation into antiquities acquired by Princeton University Art Museum. The antiquities are reported to have been handled by Edoardo Almagià whose name had already been linked to antiquities returned to Italy from the Cleveland Museum of Art.

The June report had mentioned that Princeton curator Michael Padgett was the focus of attention. Padgett was interviewed for Princeton Alumni Weekly (W. Barksdale Maynard, "Art museum curator targeted by Italian prosecutors", PAW July 7, 2010). He is quoted:

After working so closely and cooperatively with the Italians in the past, I was very disappointed and surprised that this investigation is now taking place. I am reluctant to comment at length at this early stage, but I do want to clearly state that I am innocent of what the Italian prosecutor is apparently alleging.

It is noted that Maynard now thinks that some "1.5 million items are believed to have been looted from archaeological sites in Italy" since 1970. For anybody who is unconvinced by the scale of the problem of looting and why action needs to be taken, that is a whacking estimated 37,500 antiquities looted every year for 40 years. And that is only from Italy.

The President of Princeton, Professor Shirley M. Tilghman, comments:

What is challenging is that the standards of provenance have been changing over the last 30 years — and rightfully so — and have become much more stringent.

Tilghman, and perhaps the curatorial staff of the Princeton University Art Museum, were unaware of the implications of the 40 year old UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (see "The 1970 Rule") or the 1973 AIA Declaration on the Acquisition of Antiquities by Museums. Indeed the main change has taken place in the last decade since museums and private collectors woke up to the implications of the Medici Conspiracy. Tilghman (a molecular biologist) also needs to drop the use of "provenance" and adopt the more correct term "collecting history".

The PAW interview also quotes Edoardo Almagià who commented on the 2007 agreement between Italy and Princeton:

You give them your hand, they’ll take your forearm. ... What they took from Princeton [in 2007], it’s ridiculous. The museum has a right to collect; the dealers have a right to deal.

It would be helpful if Princeton could now release a full list of any objects in its collection associated with Almagià as part of the new spirit of transparency announced ("clear and transparent standards") by Tilghman.

Christie's, the Medici Dossier and William G. Pearlstein

Kimberly Alderman ("Is Italy “Asking For It” By Refusing to Release the Medici Photographs? Three items at Christie’s raise questions", The Cultural Property and Archaeology Law Blog June 6, 2010) wanted to have a different view on the story carried in the Wall Street Journal last week [see here with quotes from original article]. She contacted New York attorney William G. Pearlstein who "represents collectors, dealers and auction houses in transactions, disputes and regulatory matters involving fine art and antiquities, including purchases and sales of fine art and antiquities, regulatory issues relating to the antiquities market; attribution, authenticity and provenance". He is also the Director of the Cultural Property Research Institute (CPRI) and spoke at the review of the MOU with Italy. Pearlstein appears to have views on "quasi-socialists" and, if a Washington lobbyist is to be believed, an acquired taste in music.

Pearlstein has called for the publication of the Medici Dossier. Yet he does not mention the view of a Christie's spokesperson (commenting on what Christie's described as "stolen artifacts") that the publication of images from a public auction allow for transparency and give opportunity for concerns to be raised. It is still not clear why Christie's left out a key piece of collecting history for lot 139 - a key piece of collecting history known to Christie's. (And is "diligence" really a verb? "so that US market participants could ... diligence their purchases" [emphasis mine].)

Pearlstein confuses two separate issues in his emailed comments to Alderman. He cites the case of "an Egyptian duck that was stolen from a government warehouse, never reported (perhaps never inventoried) and then seized when it came up on at auction 25 years later–after being consigned by a foreign purchase who took good title under local law". In this case the duck appears to have been removed from the store at Saqqara in Egypt; its excavation location is known. In the case of material featured in Polaroids from the Medici Dossier the detail relating to the archaeological contexts is not known. There is a difference between material removed from an archaeological store and objects ripped from archaeological contexts.

Does an incident in Egypt have a bearing on material from Italy? And what does it mean for "American purchasers" of archaeological material to act "in good faith"? Collectors, museums and cultural property lawyers have been aware of the ethical issues relating to archaeological material since the 1970 UNESCO Convention. And North American collectors, museums and cultural property lawyers are unlikely to have missed the 1973 AIA declaration. [For some of the issues see here.]

Pearlstein has strong views:

What the Italians are doing is outrageous. They are deliberately withholding the Medici files from the public, allowing hot pieces to remain in circulation and then playing up every seizure for maximum publicity value. They continue to play the role of victim when actually they have became cynical predators on American institutions that want nothing more than to do the right thing.

What is "the right thing"? Why have North American museums recently adopted 1970 as a benchmark for acquiring archaeological material? Why have some 130 objects been returned to Italy from North American public and private collections in recent years? Is it "outrageous" for officials of a country to be outraged by the deliberate destruction of thousands of archaeological contexts to supply objects for the antiquities market?

Pearlstein calls for "market participants to police the integrity of their collections and [be] held accountable for their failure to do so". One of the key indicators for concern is a collecting history (or "provenance") that points to a certain auction-house in London in the 1980s and early 1990s (see a selection of pieces here). "Market participants" need to conduct rigorous due diligence searches if the collecting history includes those sales. And when that collecting history is "overlooked", questions need to be asked about the reason why.