Stewardship vs. Ownership?

Looking at my bookshelves I see Who Owns Objects? and Who Owns the Past?; soon they will be joined by Who Owns Antiquity?

I have had cause to comment on essays from or comments in the first two:

• Sir John Boardman
  
• James Cuno
• James Ede
  
• John H. Merryman
• Peter K. Tompa and Ann M. Brose
• George Ortiz
  
• Michael Ward

I have also remarked on James Cuno's forthcoming book (and also here).

SAFECORNER has now noted the proliferation of books and articles asking the "Who Owns ...?" question ("To own or not to own: Is that the question?").

And it struck me that while archaeologists and politicians have been talking about the stewardship of archaeological sites and cultural property, dealers and museum directors have been addressing a totally different question.

The Sevso Treasure and "Unprovenanced Antiquities": A Response to John H. Merryman

Ruth Leader-Newby made a wise observation about the Sevso Treasure:

The tragedy of the Sevso Treasure is that it is futile to attempt a guess at its provenance. ... it is interesting to note that the countries which rumour has associated with the Sevso Treasure, and which tried to claim possession of the hoard in the New York court case held to establish its ownership (Hungary, Croatia and Lebanon) have no record of similar material being found in their soil previously. In fact, any one of the Roman Empire's many provinces could have been the home of the treasure.

There are clear intellectual consequences that are linked to the hoard's loss of archaeological context. Where was it displayed?

John H. Merryman has now issued a working paper on the Treasure that addresses the issue of "unprovenanced antiquities". I prefer the term "recently surfaced", though "hoard without documented history" could be used. I suspect that there is somebody who does know the find-spot of the hoard. After all, few believe it has been sitting forgotten in somebody's attic.

Merryman reviews the quantitative research undertaken by Chippindale and Gill (though he is apparently unaware of Chippindale et al. 2001; and see also figures for Egyptian sales at auction in New York) and finds:

These data confirm that a large proportion of the antiquities traded on the international market are unaccompanied by reliable information about findspot, context and subsequent history. The data also provide inferential support for the claim that many of the objects lacking documentation may have been removed from the ground and/or smuggled abroad in violation of source nation laws and international conventions.

However since our study of private classical collections (Chippindale and Gill 2000) some of the items from the Barbara and Lawrence Fleischman (see Gill and Chippindale 2007a, uncited by Merryman), and the Shelby White and Leon Levy collections have been returned to Italy. Lack of documented history and find-spot had suggested that they had been removed from archaeological contexts in an illicit manner; and there must be a reason why these pieces have now gone "home". Merryman concludes:

There is little room for argument with any of this. The data appear to be unchallengeable, and the authors’ statement of material and intellectual consequences is persuasive.

He then turns to the issue of publishing recently surfaced antiquities and cites the Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) "Statement of Concern". But this is a problematic statement as I have demonstrated with the example of the inscribed ivory pomegranate. Let me repeat an earlier comment:

The pomegranate is a good reminder that forgers choose something that people want to be true, and will prove both intellectually stimulating and commercially rewarding.

Indeed last year's spat over University College London (UCL) and the incantation bowls was not entirely unrelated to the BAS statement. There are good intellectual reasons for making scholars think twice - I put it no more strongly than that - before publishing works of "ancient art" that are undocumented before 1970. (See also some of the issues surrounding the publication of an archaic bronze krater in a contemporary North American private collection.)

Merryman then moves to the role of the private collector in the formation of the North American museum collection (White 2005, uncited by Merryman). But the return to Italy of objects from these recently formed private collections either suggests a naivety concerning the origin of the pieces or a willingness to ignore the concerns of the archaeological community that sites were being destroyed to supply the market. (And the Medici Conspiracy, also missing from Merryman's bibliography, demonstrates this issue all too well; see Gill and Chippindale 2007b). The Nostoi exhibition in Rome includes material from four significant North American private collections.

Merryman then turns to "source nations". There are broader issues here. Is an antiquity that has been removed illicitly from its archaeological context somehow less "unprovenanced" because it forms part of a private collection in, say, Athens rather than Manhattan? He has strayed from the issue that is central to archaeologists, the destruction / protection of archaeological contexts, to the one beloved by collectors and museum curators, ownership.

But I find a mismatch in Merryman's approach. If he argues for our shared ("cosmopolitan"; see Appiah 2006 [also surprisingly missing from his bibliography]) culture, does it matter if North American institutions (such as the AIA) and legal courts are in the forefront of protecting world ("cosmopolitan") heritage? Can North American import restrictions help to reduce the destruction of archaeological sites on, say, Cyprus?

He poses the more difficult question about what should be done with the Sevso Treasure. The archaeological context for this find has, as far as we know, been lost for ever. Is the Treasure best displayed in some public collection? Where should that be? Should anyone benefit from the transaction? Should any profit be handed over to a cultural body for the benefit of world heritage? Is there a legal solution?

Merryman concludes with a reflection on the conflict between the two "sides" and a plea to find common ground. Yet there is an unresolved tension: museums and collectors want to acquire, and archaeologists wish to preserve and protect archaeological contexts as a finite resource.

So how do we move forwards?

• We need to explore the possibilities for short- and long-term loans of archaeological material from source countries to museums and institutions.
• We need to have more transparency over the acquisition of newly surfaced antiquities.
• We need to accept that looting has intellectual as well as material consequences.
• We need to acknowledge the ethical as well as the legal issues surrounding collecting.
  
• We need to find a workable solution for "unprovenanced antiquities" like the Sevso Treasure.
• We need to listen to both sides.
  

Bibliography
Appiah, K. A. 2006. Cosmopolitanism: ethics in a world of strangers. London: Allen Lane. [Worldcat]
Chippindale, C., and D. W. J. Gill. 2000. "Material consequences of contemporary classical collecting." American Journal of Archaeology 104: 463-511. [JSTOR]
Chippindale, C., D. W. J. Gill, E. Salter, and C. Hamilton. 2001. "Collecting the classical world: first steps in a quantitative history." International Journal of Cultural Property 10: 1-31. [IJCP]
Gill, D. W. J., and C. Chippindale. 2006. "From Boston to Rome: reflections on returning antiquities." International Journal of Cultural Property 13: 311-31. [IJCP]
Gill, D. W. J., and C. Chippindale. 2007a. "From Malibu to Rome: further developments on the return of antiquities." International Journal of Cultural Property 14: 205-40. [IJCP]
Gill, D. W. J., and C. Chippindale. 2007b. "The illicit antiquities scandal: what it has done to classical archaeology collections." American Journal of Archaeology 111: 571-74. [AJA]
Leader-Newby, Ruth E. 2004. Silver and society in late antiquity: functions and meanings of silver plate in the fourth to seventh centuries. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Merryman, John Henry, "Thinking about the Sevso Treasure" (March 12, 2008). Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 1105584 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1105584
Watson, P., and C. Todeschini. 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.
White, S. 2005. "Building American museums: the role of the private collector." In Who owns the past? Cultural policy, cultural property, and the law, edited by K. Fitz Gibbon, pp. 165-77. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press / American Council for Cultural Policy.

"A long tradition of philanthropy related to archaeology"

I have already drawn attention to last week's Times Higher Education Supplement [THES] (September 28, 2007) report on the repatriation of cultural objects and, in particular, the discussion surrounding the Attic psykter and the Apulian loutrophoros in Princeton.

Point three in the box on "Shadowy Origins and Compensation Claims" highlights the proposed Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University. The THES notes opposition to the US$200 million gift "from a couple whose private art collection allegedly includes looted artefacts".

The NYU press release makes it clear that the gift comes from the Leon Levy Foundation and that its trustee is Shelby White.

One of the aims of the new Institute (due to open in 2008) is "to advance the understanding of the ancient world".

It is a pity that the antiquities which form part of the White/Levy collection have lost their archaeological context. If they had been excavated by archaeologists under scientific conditions this knowledge would have advanced the understanding of the ancient world.

The actions of some private collectors have at least drawn attention to the sleaze surrounding the looting and marketing of antiquities. Philanthropy, even on this grand scale, needs to be seen against the irreversible loss of knowledge.

The New York Times ("$200 Million Gift Prompts a Debate Over Antiquities", April 1, 2006) commented:

"many archaeologists and scholars argue that by accepting the largess of a controversial collector, N.Y.U. is showing indifference to the way the art market fuels the looting of ancient sites and prevents objects from being studied in their historical context."

The European Journal of Archaeology noted:

"There is of course so much more at stake here than American academic policies, and the debate deserves some European perspectives, not only because it is European heritage that is the focus of White’s donation to the NYU, but also because of its wider implications for the discipline."

One of the defenders of the new Institute is John Henry Merryman who wrote a letter ("A Clash Over Antiquities") to the New York Times (April 5, 2006). In it he attacked any archaeologists who were critics of the scheme:

"Their growing habit of character assassination of acquisitors is unattractive and unwarranted, and should cease."

He is silent --- significantly --- on Lawrence Stager's unhelpful and provocative attack on archaeologists with some ethical scruples as "jihadists" (NYT).

Perhaps Merryman should call for the cessation of the destruction of archaeological sites to provide antiquities for North American private collections.

Looting is about stealing our common history.

Can there be a "licit" trade in antiquities?

Derek Fincham has responded to my comments on due diligence.

Essentially we are both reacting to John Henry Merryman's essay, "A Licit International Trade in Cultural Objects" (2005; originally published in 2004).

Can there be a licit trade?

Where are the objects with secure histories?

Here are some possible sources:

a. De-accessioned material from museums. Take, for example, the Apulian column-krater attributed to the Laterza painter that was given to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts by Thomas G. Appleton in 1876 (Acc. no. 76.66 = Padgett, no. 35). This was sold at Sotheby's New York on December 11, 2002 (lot 62) for US$10,158.

b. Documented old collections. The Sotheby's New York December 9, 2004 sale included several Apulian pots from the William Randolph Hearst collection; some could be traced back to the collection "owned" by the Chapter of Durham Cathedral (England).

c. Excavated material that has left the country of origin through partage. Part of Sir Henry Wellcome's collection of Egyptian antiquities was formed in this way. (See D.W.J. Gill, "From Wellcome Museum to Egypt Centre: displaying Egyptology in Swansea," Göttinger Miszellen 205 (2005) 47-54.) The Middle Kingdom blue faience hippopotamus in the George Ortiz collection was excavated in 1907 from tomb 416 at Abydos. It had then passed into the collection of the Revd William MacGregor.

For a "licit" trade to work there needs to be:

a. Authenticated documentation. The material that will be returned to Italy from the Getty includes items that are said to come from named "old" collections - but that information appears to have been falsified (presumably by one of the vendors in the chain). (This will be discussed by Gill and Chippindale in the next number of IJCP which is now in press.) [UPDATE: Gill, D. W. J., and C. Chippindale. 2007. "From Malibu to Rome: further developments on the return of antiquities." International Journal of Cultural Property 14: 205-40.]

b. Integrity. Can we trust the word of the dealer? I am sure there are decent dealers out there but the honest ones have to recognise that some of their colleagues have not been helping to enhance their image. Why did Sotheby's stop selling antiquities in London? See Peter Watson's Sotheby's, the Inside Story (London: Bloomsbury, 1997) for some of the possible reasons.

But is there a pool of antiquities out there?

My study of 1300 lots of Egyptian antiquities sold at auction at Sotheby's New York over the last 10 years suggests that perhaps only some 30% of the objects are documented before 1973 (i.e. before the Archaeological Institute of America's resolution that brought the problem of looting to the attention of a wider public).

And what are the sources for the other 70% of Egyptian antiquities? Can we be sure that they have surfaced on the market by "licit" means? Can responsible public institutions buy Egyptian antiquities which they cannot be certain were known before the 1970 UNESCO Convention? And "due diligence" only works when you can trust the documentation that is provided by the vendor - and that is where thorough research steps in.

What about long-term loans?

Finally, Finch raises the idea of long-term loans. Kevin Butcher and I mentioned this as an idea in our review article of the first few numbers of Minerva: K. Butcher and D. W. J. Gill, "Mischievous pastime or historical science?" Antiquity 64 (1990) 946-50. Our model at the time was the impressive Emory University exhibition programme that included material from Syracuse. But loans are different to "a licit international trade".

"Due-diligence procedures are not enough to satisfy them"

John H. Merryman (in Kate Fitz Gibbon [ed.], Who Owns the Past? [2005]; the original publication of the essay was in 2004) has recently turned his attention to "The Archaeologists' Crusade". In particular he observed:

"Archaeologists have intensified the antiquities problem by demanding that museums, collectors, and the art market acquire only properly documented objects. Elaborate due-diligence procedures are not enough to satisfy them. These Crusaders presume that an antiquity that is not fully and properly documented is illicit: guilty, in other words, until proved innocent" (p. 278).

So which museum provides the model for "due-diligence procedures"?

The J. Paul Getty Museum.

And the curator cited (p. 287 n. 11) is Dr Marion True.

Merryman continues:

"At a private international conference held at the [Getty] museum in 1989, archaeologists attacked the Getty procedure as disingenuous. They insisted that an antiquity that was not fully and properly documented be treated as illicit. Eventually the museum, for institutional reasons, adopted that position, and a number of other museums in Europe and the United States have followed suit".

But wait a minute.

So this "due-diligence procedure" allowed the Getty Museum to acquire the Fleischman collection - and part of it is now about to be returned to Italy. (See my earlier comments.)

If the Getty affair has taught us anything, it is that archaeologists were right to be sceptical about the "due-diligence procedures".

But what about the accusation that undocumented antiquities are considered to be "illicit" - or to use Merryman's word, "guilty". Christopher Chippindale and I had pointed to "problems" with the Fleischman collection before the returns were announced. There were few recorded find-spots, and few histories that could be traced to the period before 1973. (See my earlier comments.)

History now teaches us that lack of documentation for these Fleischman antiquities was indeed significant: indeed significant enough for the Getty to hand the objects back to Italy.

Does Merryman need to revise his now flawed position?