Looting Matters: Why Did the Met Purchase an Object to Return It to Egypt?

Looting Matters: Why Did the Met Purchase an Object to Return It to Egypt?: "The Met has announced that it will be returning a granite fragment from a shrine (or naos) to Egypt on Thursday October 29, 2009. The piece bears the name of the 12th Dynasty (Middle Kingdom) pharaoh Amenemhat I (1985-1956 BC)."

Toxic antiquities: Pots seized in NYC

Two pots have been seized by US customs agents in New York City ("Millennia-old stolen artifacts recovered in NYC", AP October 28, 2009). The pieces, one dating to c. 460 BCE and the other to c. 350 BCE, had apparently already entered the United States and had been "offered for sale in New York". The pots were worth some $120,000.

It sounds as if the raid was in the full knowledge of the Italian authorities. Had they been offered for sale on the internet or in a published catalogue? Presumably this had alerted the Italian authorities who are clearly monitoring this type of material.

It sounds as if these two pieces feature in the polaroids seized in the Geneva Freeport.

There are some unawanswered questions. Who was selling the pieces? Had the import paperwork been completed correctly? Had the pots been acquired from another source? What is their recent collecting history?

This case illustrates the toxic effect of undocumented antiquities entering the market. Buyers should be very suspicious if there is no recorded history before 1970.

UCL and the Incantation Bowls: Lord Renfrew comments

Earlier this week Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn was speaking in the House of Lords on the "Amendment of Treasure Act 1996" [record]. After mentioning the Sevso Treasure he turned to the UCL Incantation Bowls:

The second case to which I shall refer is as scandalous but less well known in view of intimations of libel action by the lawyers of Mr Martin Schøyen, a Norwegian shipowner. He purchased a major series of 654 Aramaic incantation bowls that had been imported into this country in the 1990s in dubious circumstances and lent them for study to a London university. When the university realised that they might be looted antiquities, it rightly set up a committee of inquiry on which I had the honour of sitting under the chairmanship of the distinguished lawyer, Mr David Freeman. We determined that they had indeed been looted from Iraq, or more precisely concluded,

“on the balance of probabilities that the bowls were removed from Iraq, and that their removal took place after 6th August 1990”,

and was therefore illegal. We recommended,

“the return of the incantation bowls to the Department of Antiquities of the State of Iraq”.

A copy of that report is in the Library of the House.

Despite that, I am sorry to say that the bowls were not returned to Iraq: they were returned to the custody of Mr Martin Schøyen. Under the new clause proposed in Amendments 70 and 68, lending and borrowing would both be dealing in terms of the Bill. It would be an offence to deal in undocumented archaeological objects in such a way—and so it should be: it is scandalous that the heritage of Iraq has been treated in this way.

Met returns object to Egypt: some further thoughts

Yesterday I commented on the extraordinary story about the New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art acquiring an object so that it could be returned to Egypt. The Met has now issued a press statement.

There are several new details.

a. The granite relief fragment is inscribed with the name of Amenemhat I. Curatorial research showed it was part of a larger monument. Dorothea Arnold is quoted: "For a long time, I puzzled about the object to which this fragment belonged. I finally pieced it together when I came across a photograph showing a naos in Karnak which is missing a corner in an article by Luc Gabolde ..."

b. "The work had been on loan to The Metropolitan Museum of Art from a private owner, though the Museum had never displayed it publicly."

c. Once the identification of the piece had been made, "the Museum reached out to the owner of the work and took steps to notify the Egyptian authorities of the discovery".

d. "The Museum also arranged to purchase the work from its owner in order to take official possession of the work and return it promptly and unencumbered to Egypt".

Thomas P. Campbell, the Met's Director, provides a comment:

The Metropolitan Museum is delighted to be able to assist in returning this granite fragment to its original home. Though the fragment is small, its return is a larger symbol of the Museum's deep respect for the importance of protecting Egypt's cultural heritage and the long history of warm relations the Museum enjoys with Egypt and the Supreme Council of Antiquities.

The precedent for buying the fragment is provided by a 19th Dynasty head from the chapel of Sety I at Memphis.  In that case the piece had also been on loan from an unnamed private collector from 1996. (It had reportedly been purchased from Sotheby's in 1981, and before that had been in the collection of Mrs Richard Rogers.) It was purchased and returned to Egypt in 2001. [News story detail]


This latest return raises interesting issues. Who was the collector? Does the collector have any formal links with the Met? Why did the Met have to purchase the piece? Could the collector have been asked to return the piece directly? Is the Met trying to ensure that the collector does not suffer any consequences? Who provided the funds for the purchase? (Remember the cuts at the Met: Culturegrrl)


Perhaps the Egyptian press will provide some of the answers.

Theban Tomb 15: who pays for conservation?

I have earlier commented on the Louvre's return of the wall fragments from Theban Tomb 15. Paul Barford has written a discussion of the need to conserve the tomb. Should France be asked to take responsibility?

I think the French government should now be invited to take patronage over TT15, do a proper conservation job and perhaps restoration, and then find a way of making this tomb more secure from further attacks, but also allow its opening to the public and bear all the costs. If they want to "preserve the past", fine. Let them actually do it and not add to the destruction by financing it.

Perhaps the gallery and auction-house that handled the fragments could also be asked to make a contribution.

Met to return Egyptian object

The Associated Press is reporting that New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art will be returning an object to Egypt (Joseph Freeman, "The Met returns Egyptian artifact", AP October 27, 2009 [07:58 GMT]). The piece apparently comes from a red granite shrine of Amenemhat I and was purchased from an unnamed collector.

Intriguingly the report states that the fragment "was purchased from an antiquities collector in New York last October so that it could be returned". Does this mean that the collector did not wish to be in direct contact with the Egyptian authorities? How did he or she acquire the piece?

Zahi Hawass commented positively on the way that the Met purchased the item purely so that it could be "repatriated".

The fragment is due to be returned to Egypt on Thursday this week.

CPAC and Italy: Learning from 2001

The CPAC will be reviewing the MOU with Italy in November (see announcement). I presume some of the speakers from 2001 are unlikely to be presenting their views given the recent returns to Italy.

Would a former curator at the Cleveland Museum of Art want to talk about why objects acquired on her watch were returned to Italy? And would another individual want to expand on the details behind the trial in Rome? What could a worldwide director of compliance say when several of the antiquities returned to Italy had passed through the London auction-rooms of her company?

Can we expect to hear from officers of the Cultural Property Research Institute? No doubt somebody will be arguing that "collecting coins is not a direct threat to archaeology as most coins in collectible condition are found in hoards outside the archaeological stratum" (summary).