"The cultural heritage of the world is in serious trouble"

I was very struck by this quotation from one of the more extreme voices in the debate surrounding the international movement of cultural objects.

The writer is Wayne Sayles ("Excellence to ACL = Gee-Gaws to archaeologist", Ancient Coin Collecting, November 30, 2007).

Apparently the threat to the cultural heritage of the world comes not from looters but, according to Sayles, from archaeologists. His objection is to the tone of attacks made on the outreach scheme Ancient Coins for Education (ACE).

The cultural heritage of the world is in serious trouble while there continue to be radical advocates of the right to collect irrespective of the irreversible damage to the archaeological record.

Coins and Cyprus: the IAPN breaks silence

At long last the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) has broken its silence in the legal case against the US State Department - and not before time (see Coins and Cyprus: what are the motives of the IAPN?).

Paul Davies, president of the IAPN, has published a response - not on the IAPN website as you might expect - but on the website of the ACCG thoughtfully posted by Wayne Sayles (ACCG, December 8, 2007).

Interestingly Davies makes a statement that the IAPN - like the ACCG - "opposes looting of archaeological sites". But he perhaps forgot to read the discussion "Coins, ethics and scheduled monuments" posted back in September. It would have helped him to think through the issues.

I wonder if Davies would consider adopting the amendment I proposed for the ACCG Code of Ethics:

Coin Collectors and Sellers will not buy coins that they know or reasonably suspect were removed from archaeological sites or stolen from museum or personal collections.

And does Davies address the real motives behind the IAPN's action? Not really.

But did I expect him to do so? Not really.

The Sale of Egyptian Antiquities at Sotheby's: a Reflection

The sale of the Guennol Lioness - "said to have been found at a site near Baghdad" and displayed at the Brooklyn Museum since 1948 - at Sotheby's in New York this week for US$57.161 million has captured attention.

But this is the third best year since 1998 for the sale of Egyptian antiquities at Sotheby's with a total of US$6.586 million in 2007. First place is 2004 with US$9.414 million, and second is 1999 with US$6.811 million.

Egyptian antiquities now represent 16% of the total sales of antiquities for the period 1998-2007 fetching some US$42.826 million. Antiquities in general - and that includes the Guennol Lioness - have raised some US$216.306 million for Sotheby's.

And what are the sources for these Egyptian antiquities?

Just over 95% lots have no stated find-spot. And some 68% were first known after 1973.

Note
Figures revised in December 2008.

The Fordham Museum of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Art

Robin Pogrebin ("Fordham Opens Its Gift: An Antiquities Museum ", New York Times, December 6, 2007) has reported on today's opening of the Fordham Museum of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Art. This collection was formed by a former classics student of Fordham. The NYT reports:

For some four decades, William D. Walsh browsed auction catalogs in search of the ancient artifacts that would gratify his passion for classical antiquity.

In other words during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and in this decade, Walsh has been buying antiquities at auction. Pogrebin continues:

Mr. Walsh said he acquired every piece at public auctions — not through a private dealer — and therefore hopes that the provenance of his artifacts is clean and accounted for. “I’ve always focused on keeping the auction house between myself and the seller,” he said.

But it is well documented that antiquities have been surfacing through auction houses. Why did one well-known auction house close down its antiquities department in London? Why had some of the antiquities returned from North American museums to Italy passed through established auction houses?

Pogrebin tries to get some balance in his report and quotes Richard Hodges, the director of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology:

It’s a slightly imprudent act on the part of the university [sc. Fordham], because a lot of it is not provenanced ... The message that it sends is there is nothing wrong with looting and buying illegal objects. Fordham needs to be very careful about this.

The collection is described by Jennifer Udell, the curator, as follows:

It spans several periods, Mycenaean, Villanovan, Classical Greece, Geometrical, Archaic Roman, Imperial Roman, Republican, Etruscan, South Italian.”

The press release highlights the following:

• a bronze bust of Roman emperor Caracalla of the Severan Dynasty, circa 200
  A.D.;
• several large ceramic vessels from the ancient Etruscans, whose culture flourished in central Italy in the centuries before the rise of the Roman Empire;
• a nickel-size Athenian silver coin, with an owl insignia, dating from the 5th or 6th century B.C.;
• an 8-foot high male funerary statue from Rome, circa 10 A.D.;
• a marble bust of Augustus, adopted son of Julius Caesar and the first emperor of Rome.

It will be interesting to see the sources and histories of the pieces in due course.

"Always a background of quasi-socialist sentiment"

The coverage of recent rumours of impending US restrictions on antiquities provides some insights into the thinking behind some of those who appear to support or defend the unrestricted collecting of cultural objects (Jeremy Kahn, "Is the U.S. Protecting Foreign Artifacts? Don't Ask", New York Times, April 8, 2007).

One of the more colourful comments was from William G. Pearlstein who describes himself as counsel at Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell and Peskoe LLP. He is listed as representing "Private dealers and collectors of fine art and antiquities" as well as the "National Association of Dealers in Ancient, Oriental and Primitive Art, Inc."

Pearlstein came up with this wonderful statement (if we accept the veracity of NYT):

In a lot of anti-collecting bashing or museum bashing that goes on there is always a background of quasi-socialist sentiment.

And what is the evidence for this sweeping statement? Does "always" mean "always"? And what is "quasi-socialist sentiment"? And does speaking out against the looting of archaeological sites equate to "anti-collecting bashing or museum bashing"? In fact such a comment suggests that Pearlstein has rather run out of rational lines of defence.

If Pearlstein took a moment to think about his sound bite he would have been struck by the oddity of describing Lord Renfrew, for example, as a quasi-socialist.

But what made me amused was the next comment:

You always hear archaeologists hissing about money.

Is legal work conducted for dealers pro bono?

Coins and Cyprus: what are the motives of the IAPN?

The International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) are one of three groups taking legal action against the US State Department. Their stated objectives are (and I quote in full):

The IAPN is a non-profit organisation of the leading international numismatic firms founded 1951. The objectives of the Association are the development of a healthy and prosperous numismatic trade conducted according to the highest standards of business ethics and commercial practice.

Peter Tompa has now commented (in response to my posting where I stated, "But there is also an active lobby apparently seeking to liberalise the market"):

I don't understand why you think we stand for "liberalizing" the trade.

Really?

Even when one of the three bodies taking legal action has a stated objective to develop "a healthy and prosperous numismatic trade".

Even when the IAPN states in the legal papers that "the material sought in these FOIA requests will assist the IAPN in reaching these organizational goals", viz. "a healthy and prosperous numismatic trade".

Even when restrictions on the movement of coins (and antiquities) from Cyprus limit the supply. (And the point of the US import restriction is, I am sure we can both agree, to protect the archaeological and cultural heritage of Cyprus.)

Even when the ACCG narrative states:

The State Department recently imposed unprecedented import restrictions on ancient coins from Cyprus—requiring importers of even a single common coin of “Cypriot type” to provide unfair, unworkable and unnecessary documentation.

Even when fellow ACCG members state melodramatically ("Another Watergate?"):

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild is the only organization actively defending collectors against the steady and insidious encroachment of legislation and regulations aimed at restricting and perhaps eventually banning private collecting.

Is the ACCG the only organisation "actively defending collectors against the steady and insidious encroachment of legislation and regulations"? What about the IAPN, or that matter the PNG, that are both fellow plaintiffs?

In any case, what is the problem if the coins available to collectors come from legitimate sources? After all, the legal papers (item 1) actually specify "other members of the public interested in the legitimate international exchange of cultural artifacts".

Tompa also claims (in response to Safecorner's posting "All the news that's fit to print?"):

All ACCG and the numismatic trade seek here is the "provenance" of the unprecedented decision to impose import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type and some transparency and accountability from the public servants at the State Department.

Really?

Wayne Sayles perhaps gives a big clue (again as a comment on the same Safecorner posting) when he says:

What is not mentioned is that collector and trade organizations support the Cultural Property Implementation Act. We honor the recommendations of CPAC. We merely asked Department of State whether they honored the recommendation of their own committee when they agreed to impose import restrictions. When they refused to answer that question, we felt that it was our right as citizens to use legal processes to force that answer.

I am note sure how the IAPN based in Brussels (and with that address --- 14, rue de la Bourse, 1000 Brussels, Belgium --- on the legal papers submitted against the US State Department) counts as a US citizen (though I realise that there are US-based dealers within IAPN).

I am also intrigued why the IAPN has still to make any mention of the court action on the press release section of its website. Is the IAPN taking an active role? Or is it just lending its name? Indeed the same appears to be true for the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG).

So what are the motives of the IAPN? What are they hoping to achieve by this court action?

Perhaps Messrs Sayles, Tompa, and Welsh could encourage their (sleeping) partners to make their views heard.

"We are ushering in a new era"

A conference attended by North American museum directors and Italian cultural authorities was held in Rome held this week (Elisabetta Povoledo, "Progress Seen in Talks on Antiquities", New York Times, December 1, 2007). This is a positive move after the return of antiquities from Boston, Malibu, New York, and Princeton.

Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli not only claimed "We are ushering in a new era" but:

The phase that was tied to illegal activity through unacceptable channels is closed, and we have arrived at a turning point where we have become partners against illegal traffic.

There is a new spirit of collaboration. Does this mean that other North American museums have come to an agreement with the Italian authorities?

It is perhaps a pity that, in this week of constructive dialogue, Philippe de Montebello of the Metropolitan Museum of Art chose to release a defiant message through his interview with Richard Lacayo. Was the timing a coincidence? Or are de Montebello's controversial views now being placed to one side?