Condemning "monsters": Yates on the trade in archaeological material

Dr Donna Yates (University of Glasgow) has been interviewed by Chris Havergal for the Times Higher ('Cultural Guardian', THE 15 January 2015, 42-45). The interview starts with her experience of looting at Mayan sites. She explains her role, 'piercing together smuggling networks or studying legal mechanisms for preventing looting'.

She reflects on the impact on local communities:

It's a situation in which extremely rich and wealthy white people take complete advantage of people who can't fight back, and then blame them for it. I see it as double victimisation - these people are not only having their property taken from them, they are having their ability to construct their own identities taken from them by people who have all this power, who don't even consider it to be a problem.

She also talks about museums:

She says some museums have done "horrible" things and has little sympathy for institutions that are not honest about their past and the provenance of their artefacts.

The interview also reflects on Yates' research:

[the] project seeks to understand the relationships between communities, governments, the law and international criminal markets, with the aim of developing regulatory mechanisms for controlling the illicit antiquities trade. 

Those involved in dealing with archaeological material will be concerned to read that her focus is on 'eliminating the markets for looted archaeological treasures'. She would also like to see more people 'being jailed for committing this sort of crime'. (It is not clear if she means looters, dealers or collectors.)

She sees a role for the general public:

And she believes that society at large can play a role, too, by not accepting the illicit collecting of antiquities as something that just happens, but by condemning those who deal and collect such items as "monsters".

This interview helps to remind the archaeological and museological communities why "looting matters" both in terms of the impact on unexcavated remains as well as the corruption of knowledge as objects with lost contexts enter the corpus.

The Merrin Mayan War Vase

The Merrin Gallery has conveniently issued a video of the Mayan "War Vase" recently acquired by the Cleveland Museum of Art.

Cleveland Comment on Lack of "documentary confirmation"

Source: Cleveland Museum of Art

It is worth noting the way that the Cleveland Museum of Art has drawn comment from various sources (described by Director David Franklin as "that world") over its acquisition of the Drusus from an old Algerian collection, and the Merrin Mayan vase.

Here is a flavour:

• "Cleveland Museum Strikes Defiant Tone on Antiquities Collecting", Nord on Art, August 13, 2012: "Transparency about provenance is essential in antiquities collecting"
• "Cleveland Bust: "That World" Already asking Questions, Museum on the Defensive", Paul Barford, August 13, 2012.

The Drusus is now on the AAMD object register. Its collecting history is provided:

Fernand Sintes before 1960; sold at auction at Hôtel Drouot-Richelieu Paris on September 29, 2004, lot. no. 340, unknown purchaser; Phoenix Ancient Art, S.A.(2004); sold to the Cleveland Museum of Art by Phoenix Ancient Art in 2012.

It is perhaps noteworthy that the register entry makes the following comment (emphasis mine): "The Cleveland Museum of Art has provenance information for this work back to the 1960’s, but has been unable to obtain documentary confirmation of portions of the provenance as described below..."

Is the earliest documented surfacing of this portrait no earlier than 2004?

The Merrin Mayan vase has yet to be posted on the AAMD Register.

The Cleveland Museum of Art has also issued a press release ("Cleveland Museum of Art Acquires Two Stellar Antiquities Objects", August 13, 2012), no doubt to counter comment. It includes the alleged (and unsupported) collecting history:

The ownership history of the Drusus Minor portrait has been traced to the late 19th century, when it was the property of the Bacri family of Algiers, Algeria. Sometime before 1960, Fernand Sintes inherited the work, and in 1960 transferred it from Algiers to France. In 2004, it was sold at auction in France.

The Director, David Franklin, emphasises what he terms "responsible collecting" by the Museum:

“I am pleased we can add these important works of art to the museum’s Classical and Pre-Columbian holdings and continue our collecting of the finest examples of art from across cultures and time periods,” stated David Franklin, the Sarah S. and Alexander M. Cutler Director of the Cleveland Museum of Art. “I believe museums play an invaluable role in society as repositories and presenters of the world’s art history, and through responsible collecting, museums make accessible the world’s art objects for the public’s enjoyment and education.”

Perhaps Franklin will produce what appears to be the unauthenticated documentation to defend his acquisition.

Drusus from an old Algerian collection

Source: Cleveland Museum of Art

The Cleveland Museum of Art purchased a marble portrait head of Iulius Caesar Drusus Minor (Steven Litt, "Cleveland Museum of Art buys important ancient Roman and Mayan antiquities", Cleveland.com August 12, 2012). The head head has been purchased from Phoenix Ancient Art for an undisclosed sum. Litt provides the collecting history:

The museum said the portrait of Drusus Minor was the property of the Bacri family of Algiers, Algeria, as far back as the late 19th century. The museum said the work was inherited by Fernand Sintes before 1960s, and that Sintes transferred it to France in 1960.

The museum has yet to disclose the authenticated documentation for this reported "pedigree". David Franklin, the director of the Cleveland Museum of Art and expert in Italian Renaissance art, informs the report:

Franklin said the two new purchases follow guidelines established by the Association of Art Museum Directors, which stipulate that museums generally should avoid buying antiquities unless they were documented as being outside their likely country of origin before 1970, the date of an international UNESCO convention aimed at halting the looting of antiquities, or were legally exported thereafter.

What is the evidence that Drusus was known prior to 1970? Franklin appears to expect that questions will be asked about the Drusus.

Cleveland is unwilling to discussion its acquisition of the bronze portrait of Marcus Aurelius that appears to come from Bubon. The collecting history for the so-called Cleveland Apollo (also acquired from Phoenix Ancient Art) has been disputed.

Cleveland was one of the North American museums that agreed to return material to Italy (list here). So there is every reason for the museum to wish to be seen to be conducting a rigorous due diligence process prior to acquisition.

The dispute over the St Louis Art Museum's acquisition of an Egyptian mummy mask, purchased from Phoenix Ancient Art, has shown flaws in the reported collecting history.

The second piece acquired by Cleveland is a Mayan vessel "with a Battle Scene" had apparently passed through the hands of Edward H. Merrin in 1973. (Edward H. Merrin had also handled the "Merrin Zeus" displayed at the Cleveland Museum of Art.)

Publishing recently surfaced Mayan pots

Mike Smith has drawn my attention to a recent article in the Smithsonian Magazine (Chip Brown, "El Mirador, the Lost City of the Maya", May 2011). Smith notes:

The article includes photographs of several spectacular Maya polychrome vessels (p. 45) that apparently are not from the site. In fact, we have no idea where these vessels are from; they lack provenience. In a post on the Aztlan listserv today, Karen Bruhns identifies these vessels as unprovenienced, looted, objects.

One of the pieces has been identified as coming from the so-called November Collection. The point is made:

One might expect that magazines by and for wealthy art dealers might publish looted objects without a second thought. But Smithsonian Magazine is supposedly a legitimate source of news about natural history and related topics, associated with the premier museum in the U.S. Their inclusion of photos of looted objects is deplorable, a real ethical lapse.

Smith draws attention to an article in the New York Times (Susan Diesenhouse, "Arts in America; Looted or Legal? Objects Scrutinized at Boston Museum", July 30, 1998). The discussion seems to be familiar:

Museum officials curtly rejected a request from Guatemala to eventually return a 138-piece collection of Mayan art that is the jewel of its pre-Columbian display. In a two-paragraph letter written a month ago to a Guatemalan official, Malcolm Rogers, director of the museum, said that its board of trustees ''found no basis'' for Guatemala's ownership claim because the country could not produce legal title to the pieces.

It looks as the Smithsonian needs to revisit its publication policy.