Selling antiquities: "Trying to get a brand new take"

I am still thinking about the radical proposal on Archaeological Development Bonds suggested by the Milken Institute ("Financial Innovations to Curb Looting and Preserve Cultural Resources").

It made me go back through my notes. In March 2007 the Aboutaams were featured in an interview for the New York Times (Ron Stodghill, "Do You Know Where That Art Has Been?", New York Times, March 18, 2007). The article was in part about the implications for the market caused by the return of antiquities from Boston and the Getty.

The new wariness of collectors, both public and private, to buy or exhibit works that do not have the most rigorously documented history jeopardizes the business of even the most established dealers. So the Aboutaams are remaking themselves and their business. In a trade that has been full of grave robbers and forgers adding patina to new objects, they are busy digging up documentation for everything they sell in an effort to polish their reputation.

Tracing the collecting histories of pieces has become important as the supply of freshly-surfaced antiquities has come under increasing scrutiny.

So it is not surprising that Hicham Aboutaam has begun supporting the bans. He envisions that the market for antiquities, which he says are currently undervalued, will resemble that of old masters or Impressionist paintings, which have increased sharply in value of late.

''The more questionable works entering the antiquities market, the less their value and the larger the dark cloud that hangs over the field,'' Mr. Aboutaam said. ''That affects prices negatively. I think we could put an end to the new supply, and work comfortably with what we have.''

Under such a moratorium, the Aboutaams and other established antiquities dealers would enjoy a significant advantage over newer competitors.

So where does the market go from here?

Stodghill continued his report:

Mr. Aboutaam is working with the Milken Institute, the economic research organization in Santa Monica, Calif., on a conference to be held in June to discuss the disparities in international treaties and laws affecting provenance and the antiquities market. Jared Carney, director of marketing and program development at the institute, said that discussing the woes of the art market is not standard fare for the organization.

''But what is right down the middle for us is looking at issues of social capital and the challenges of protecting intellectual property, and protecting assets and the pressure to preserve heritage,'' Mr. Carney said. ''You've got to give it to Hicham for trying to get a brand new take on things and coming at his challenges in a different way.''

In the end, Mr. Aboutaam said his efforts were simply to preserve the past for a world that should have access to it through beautiful cultural objects.

To what extent is this initiative from the Milken Institute being prompted from within, and for the benefit of, the market?

Financial Innovations and the Sponsorship of Archaeological Excavations

This post will address the second of the Milken Institute's proposals to fund archaeology (see my earlier comments on leasing). The second solution is to "Develop museum/collector partnerships to sponsor archaeological digs".

This solution advocates the role of the private collector.

Because museum lease models include only a few of the players within the value chain, another option would include a limited participation level for individual collectors who have spending power to generate substantial revenues. Countries of origin have been historically reluctant to lease items to personal collections. However, the bias against collectors ignores the demand that drives the trade, creating a vacuum in which billions of dollars cross through the black market.

In one sense this is an old model. Private individuals (and museums) supported bodies such as the Egypt Exploration Fund (see the example of Sir Henry Wellcome) and then received a share of the finds (so-called partage which I have discussed before). Thus the Middle Kingdom blue faience hippopotamus found at Abydos in the EEF's excavations passed into the collection of the Revd William MacGregor (and from there eventually into the George Ortiz collection).

The Milken Institute report suggests that a collector sponsors an archaeological museum whose staff will then conduct excavations.

A portion of the yield would be distributed among all funders through either a loan or, potentially, a purchase, with the most prized and unique pieces staying in the home country. Should the dig produce nothing of salable value, the local museum would use as collateral either excess inventory from previous excavations or the loan of a currently exhibited piece.

This immediately raises questions. While archaeological museums are repositories for archaeological material, are they also initiating archaeological work? And should excavations be conducted merely to generate finds that can be passed to the market? And would such excavations favour the type of sites that would produce "museum quality" items? But what about non-elite sites? There is nothing here about a research-driven archaeological strategy. After all, we are dealing with a finite resource.

And who would make the selection of finds? What would be the criteria? Would distribution take place after full study, conservation and publication?

I wonder what the J. Paul Getty Museum feels about the way it is presented in the report.

The Getty Museum, for example, might partner with two private collectors to fund a dig in Italy.

Would "source" countries prefer to see an archaeological project sponsored by an institution rather than by private collectors?

There is another issue. Would collectors sponsoring excavations sign up to an ethical code? Would they stop acquiring antiquities that surface on the market without histories (prior to 1970)? Would they apologise if they have acquired such antiquities in the past?

Financial Innovations and the Lease of Antiquities

I have been reading the Milken Institute's Financial Innovation Lab Report on Financial Innovations for Developing Archaeological Discovery and Conservation (December 2008) [pdf: registration required].

Three "Financial Innovations for Developing Archaeological Discovery and Conservation" are presented. (It is a pity that the innovations did not cover discovery, conservation and publication.)

The first solution is to "Promote long-term museum and exhibit leases". The report highlights the income generated by the recent treasures of King Tutankhamun tour which is expected to generate US $40 million for the new Egyptian Museum in Cairo.

These tours, while generating capital for the companies that sponsor them, could work within lease models, with museums collaborating on the exhibition of specific collections from countries of origin to create shared revenue pools.

There have been models for such collaborative loan schemes: a good example was provided by "The Emory University Museum International Loan Project" (EUMILOP) from the 1980s.

Would such leases cover the more eye-catching pieces? What about the less significant objects? Would such schemes encourage detailed publication (as EUMILOP achieved)? Would the money generated be returned to the conservation, preservation, display and publication of archaeological monuments and finds in the countries of origin? Or would the money be seen as part of a country's income stream?

Who would be the brokers in such leases? What would be their "cut"?

Who would decide on the choice of items? Museum curators? National archaeologists?

There are a plenty of questions and this only relates to the least controversial of the three "solutions".