Context Matters: Collating the Past

Context Matters is based on the twenty essays contributed to the Journal of Art Crime over its first ten years. They are supplemented by articles and review articles that were published alongside them. The chapters were written as museums in Europe and North America were facing a series of claims on recently acquired objects in their collections in the light of the photographic dossiers that had been seized from dealers in Switzerland and Greece. They engage with some of the recent debates over cultural property that include the Ka Ka Nefer mummy mask currently in the St Louis Art Museum, and the Leutwitz Apollo acquired by the Cleveland Museum of Art. Two of the essays reflect on the recent and controversial metal-detecting finds in England, the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet and the Lenborough Hoard. The volume contributes to the wider discussion about the appropriate due diligence process that should be conducted prior to the acquisition of archaeological material. 

Gill, D. W. J. 2020. Context matters: collating the past. ARCA. ISBN-13: 978-1734302615.

Setting high ethical standards for collecting antiquities

Ka Nefer Nefer mummy mask. Source: SLAM

Victoria Reed, from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, has been discussing the need for due diligence in museums ("How should museums respond to art smuggling scandals?", Apollo January 24, 2017). This is clearly an important issue for the museum as it was one of the first of the North American museums to return objects to Italy in the wake of the Medici Conspiracy (see  "From Boston to Rome: reflections on returning antiquities").

Reed makes an important point about 'verified' information; I choose to talk about 'authenticated' documentation. How to we chart the collecting history of an object? What are the confirmed sources?

I was taken by this section:

If, however, an investigation turns up looted antiquities in a museum collection (for example, if photographs show an object shortly after it was illicitly removed from the ground, or if its provenance documentation was demonstrably forged), then a museum has an obligation to redress the break in the chain of that object’s ownership in some way. Usually such a resolution is achieved through a financial settlement with, or physical return to, the country of modern discovery. Museums hold their collections as public trusts, and no museum should wish knowingly to retain stolen property on behalf of the public.

It is worth returning to the case of the Ka Nefer Nefer mummy case at the St Louis Art Museum ("The Case of the Ka Nefer Nefer Mummy Mask"). Now that the email discussions have been made public it would be appropriate for the museum to revisit the acquisition and to start negotiating with the Egyptian authorities.

Minoan larnax. Source Becchina archive, and Carlos Museum

And what about the Minoan larnax in the Carlos Museum at Emory University? Why has there been no attempt to resolve this claim from Greece that has been on-going for so many years? Is the imagery from the Becchina unconvincing for the museum curators? How do they explain the images and the documentation?

Reed, I am sure, is sincere in what she writes. But her writing does not take full account of museums in North America that have yet to adjust their ethical positions in defiance of their public and educational roles.

The Ka Nefer Nefer Mummy Mask: its collecting history

My article on the acquisition of the Ka Nefer Nefer mummy mask by the St Louis Art Museum has been published in The Journal of Art Crime ("The case of the Ka Nefer Nefer mummy mask", vol. 12, 13-25). It discusses previously undisclosed information about when the curatorial team at SLAM became aware of aspects of the collecting history. In particular, there is discussion of the exchanges in 1999 that brought about "new" information about when the mask had first been sighted.

The article is likely to raise issues about the apparent lack of rigour in the due diligence process adopted by SLAM during the acquisition, and the unwillingness to discuss the collecting history with Egyptian authorities when concerns were first raised with SLAM (including with the Director).

I close with this question:

Will professional responsibilities bring the SLAM team to reopen discussions with the Egyptian authorities to ensure the mask's return to Egypt?

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.