Is the debate about reclaiming cultural property?

Are those involved in discussions over cultural property confusing several issues?

Italy has long been concerned about the destruction of its archaeological record. Tombaroli have been entering Etruscan burial chambers for centuries. But the organised, systematic and widespread looting of archaeological sites meant that action had to be taken. The surfacing of the Sarpedon krater in New York was a visual remind of archaeological contexts torn apart to supply the market.

And it was not just Etruscan tombs. Cemeteries in southern Italy were being ripped apart to supply the demand for Apulian pottery.

Turning to Greece, the Early Bronze Age cemeteries of the Cyclades were being pillaged to supply the demand for marble Cycladic figures. On Crete Bronze Age sites were worked over to supply the demands of the market. And in Macedonia, elite tombs served as a supply for high quality items to be sent to market.

So the return of the Sarpedon krater, Apulian pots, Macedonian gold wreaths, or bronze kraters to countries like Greece and Italy send out a clear message: museums and collectors should not handle recently-surfaced antiquities. The collector-driven market leads to the destruction of the finite archaeological record.

Then there is the issue of material stolen from archaeological museums and stores. Mummy masks and bronze statues that have been raided from archaeological collections should be returned.

There are also the long-standing issues that predate the 1970 UNESCO Convention. What about Nefertiti? What about the Rosetta stone? What about the Parthenon marbles? What about the Bubon bronze statues? What about the Benin bronzes? Here the issue is less about looting than the appropriate place to display key archaeological objects. Are the architectural sculptures from a fifth-century BCE temple best displayed in London or within line of sight of the building on which they were once placed?

Such issues also raise concerns about how to preserve our cosmopolitan cultural property. Should there be restrictions on the movement of archaeological material (including coins) across international boundaries? How can those who handle archaeological material (including coins) ensure that they are not handling the proceeds of recent looting? How can we protect our past for the benefit of future generations?

Is the debate about reclaiming cultural property?

Not really. The issues revolve around the material and intellectual consequences of looting.

Image
© David Gill

Octodrachm seized in Switzerland: update

I recently commented on a news story (in a Greek language newspaper published in Thessaloniki) about the reported seizure of a Thraco-Macedonian coin in Switzerland. (My post was unillustrated.)

The paper does not state the auction house but it does provide key information: "Η δημοπρασία στη Ζυρίχη, που οργανώθηκε από αγγλικό οίκο, ολοκληρώθηκε την περασμένη Τρίτη και το νόμισμα πουλήθηκε αντί του ποσού των 116.500 ελβετικών φράγκων (περίπου 77.000 ευρώ)". There is an auction house with an address in London SW1 and with a further branch in Zurich (and Milan). And on Wednesday (not Tuesday) last week (October 7) lot 110 (auction 52) consisted of "Greek coins, Kings of the Bisaltae, Mosses, Octodrachm". Lot 110 sold for 100,000 Swiss francs (excluding buyer's fee). The buyer's "premium" was 16,500 Swiss francs giving a total price of 116,500 Swiss francs. Moreover the newspaper report described the octodrachm: "προέρχεται από την περιοχή της αρχαίας Βισαλτίας και κόπηκε επί βασιλείας ενός Μοσσή".

The description of the coin in the Zurich sale describes it as "Apparently unique and unpublished". It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that this coin and the one described by the Thessaloniki newspaper are one and the same.

The auction house in question is a member of the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN). The IAPN website states:

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.

A member of IAPN would no doubt wish to co-operate with the Interpol investigation into the coin.

I have contacted the London and Zurich offices of the coin dealership but have not received a reply.

But the story does not end there. A Washington lobbyist and legal officer to a cultural property research institute has questioned the story; indeed he is even an "avid collector" of Greek coins (though from Greek colonies in Southern Italy and Sicily). (The basis of his rejection seems to be the use of a stock photograph of an ancient coin to the illustrate the article in the Thessaloniki newspaper.) Moreover the same lobbyist works for a law firm that appears to be retained by the IAPN.

And the IAPN is one of three bodies that are involved with a FOIA request served on the US State Department (see details).

So why should a Washington lobbyist object to people drawing attention to a story? Should coin collectors be aware that Interpol could move against specific coins? Or does the Zurich seizure highlight an uncomfortable truth about recently surfaced coins?

Octodrachm seized in Switzerland

There are reports in the Greek press that a silver octodrachm has been seized by Swiss authorities ("Το δρόμο για την Ελλάδα παίρνει το αρχαίο οκτάδραχμο", Makedonia October 13, 2009). The coin was minted during the reign of Mosses, king of the Basaltae, and dates to around 480 BCE.

It appears that the octodrachm was auctioned in Zurich last week and fetched 116,500 Swiss francs (approximately 77,000 euros). The press report suggests that a photograph of the coin was taken two years prior to the sale. (Such photographic evidence lies behind other investigations.) The Hellenic Ministry of Culture tried to intervene before the sale but without success. However, with the help of Interpol, the coin was seized on Friday October 9 before it had been collected by the person who made the "winning" bid.

The auction house is not named in the report though it also has an office in London.

Hawass asks for loan of Rosetta Stone

The Daily Telegraph has a short interview with Zahi Hawass in the wake of the announcement that the Louvre would be returning tomb fragments to Egypt (Samer al-Atrush, "Egypt asks British Museum for the Rosetta Stone after Louvre victory, Daily Telegraph October 10, 2009). Hawass would like the British Museum to loan the Rosetta Stone to Egypt. The Telegraph added "[Hawass] promised to return the relic after Egypt's Grand Museum opens in 2013".

Hawass is quoted:

I am not asking for all the objects in the British Museum to come back, only for the unique objects to come back to Egypt.

What is meant by unique? Are they the culturally significant pieces?

Toxic Antiquities: Lessons from the Louvre

The announcement today that the Louvre would be returning tomb fragments to Egypt raises more disturbing questions. It is being reported that one of the pieces first surfaced at a London auction in the early 1980s. Are museums taking the 1970 benchmark seriously? Does the due diligence process demonstrate a recorded collecting history that can be traced back prior to 1970? Are museums too eager to acquire?

How many other toxic antiquities are still in museum collections?

France to Return Tomb Fragments to Egypt

The French Ministry of Culture announced today that the Louvre would be handing over disputed fragments to Egypt (press release October 9, 2009). A scientific commission of 35 experts gave a unanimous decision that the pieces should be returned. The Minister, Frédéric Mitterrand, has followed the commission's advice.

• Louvre to return Egyptian frescos, BBC October 9, 2009
  

Looting Matters: Egypt Puts Pressure on French Museum

Looting Matters: Egypt Puts Pressure on French Museum