Month: June 2007

Theft of a Small Masterpiece in Sydney


Last week a work by Dutch master Frans van Mieris, A Cavalier (Self Portrait), was taken from a busy gallery last Sunday. The work may be worth as much as $1.4 million Australian. The work is not large, measuring about 30cm x 26cm. The Director of the Art Gallery of NSW, Edmund Capon said “To be honest, I could slip it under your coat… it could have happened that way”.

Many of the Australian news outlets refer to an interview on Australian ABC radio with Robert Goldman, an agent with the FBI Art Crime Team. Goldman runs through the usual speculation which occurs when a valuable painting has been stolen, as the market for a high-profile work is negligible. As he said, “Our experience, the FBI experience, is that approximately 80 per cent of museum theft cases of art are inside jobs – either people who work there – people whom we say ‘have the keys to the kingdom’.”

Other theories are that the thieves were just foolish, thinking they could have sold it, when in reality they cannot. Also there is the usual speculation that the work could have been stolen on consignment by a Dr. No character because as Goldman says “There are collectors out there that don’t care if the items are stolen.”

The recovery rate for these works is very low. When this kind of work does resurface, it is often a generation later. The irony in this case is this gallery had begun to trumpet its new security in preparation for an upcoming exhibition on Islamic Art. The other possibility may be that security is so lax, a gallery visitor may have just admired the work and wanted it on their wall. Though much of the gallery is under video surveillance, it seems the room where this object was displayed was not.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

412 Antiquities Repatriated


On Wednesday, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officials returned 412 pre-Columbian antiquities to Peru. US Officials said it was the largest repatriation since the 1970s. The objects were returned during a repatriation ceremony at Florida International University in Miami. This is the Consul General of Peru, Jorge E. Ramon Morey. The best reporting is from the Miami Herald, with a slideshow and video, here. The Washington Post has a store here, Reuters has a blurb here and the AP summary can be found here.

They were being hawked by Ugo Bagnato, an Italian citizen, from a 1985 GMC cutaway van. Each antiquity was being sold for as much as $2,000 a piece. He smuggled the objects into the country in 2004 using “fake documents.” If I had to guess, I’d say he faked the customs documents. I had heard nothing about this case previously, but it seems Bagnato plead guilty and served 17 months in federal prison. He is now awaiting deportation.

The objects included:

  • dolls
  • tapestries
  • gold jewelry
  • burial shrouds
  • clay vessels
  • ancient fabrics
  • a child’s tunic

The arrest is a welcome sign I think, but of course the archaeological context surrounding the objects has been destroyed. As Morey said, coastal areas in Peru are looted to such an extent that “from an airplane, it looks like the area has been bombed.” The objects were returned pursuant to the 1997 bilateral agreement between the two nations. This was the way the US chose to implement the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

This arrest of Bagnato and the repatriation, though welcome, indicate that the current regulation of the international antiquities trade is simply not working. One would expect that a guy selling a 3,000 year-old pot from a van should be apprehended. The objects weren’t noticed by Customs officials, because most shipments cannot be satisfactorily examined. Also, the middle-men and actual looters are unlikely to be punished.

Will the high-profile announcement this week serve to discourage the illicit trade? I have my doubts. If such this guy can openly sell objects from his van, I wonder how many illicit objects are sold in the more prestigious auction houses and galleries? We cannot be sure of course, because they do not routinely give provenance for their wares, and until they do, Peru and other source nations will likely continue to lose their archaeological heritage.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Case Note in the International Journal of Cultural Property

On SSRN I’ve just posted my case note Rejecting Renvoi for Movable Cultural Property: The Islamic Republic of Iran V. Denyse Berend 14 Int’l J. Cultural Prop. Issue 01, pp 111-120 You can download the article here. Here is the abstract:

In Iran v. Berend, the High Court in London had occasion to revisit one of the most enduring problems of private international law and cultural property. Effective regulation of the illicit market in cultural property is extremely difficult, because many measures aimed at stemming the illicit trade actually contribute to the black market. Courts in both England and the United States have shown that they are prepared to use criminal laws to convict persons involved in the illegal trade in antiquities exported in violation of foreign patrimony laws. As a result, much cultural property policy debate in recent years has focused on the extent to which the criminal law can impact the illicit trade. The extent to which national ownership declarations can be used in civil disputes remains less clear.

I would especially like to thank the Case Notes Editor Robert Paterson of the University of British Columbia for all his help editing the note. If there are any comments to the piece, I would love to hear them.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Update on the True/Hecht Trial in Rome

Over the weekend, Elisabetta Povoledo of the New York Times updated the antiquities trial underway in Rome. Daniela Rizzo, an archaeologist who featured prominently in Peter Watson’s “The Medici Conspiracy” testified that the antiquities trade “was a sophisticated method of laundering,” in which private collectors would acquire looted antiquities and donate them to museums.

As Povoledo states, “None [of the private antiquities collectors] are on trial here. None have been legally charged with any wrongdoing. Nor do Italian prosecutors contend that the collectors had evidence that certain objects had been looted. Yet the prosecutors have clearly adopted a strategy of calling attention to collectors, especially well-heeled Americans, with the implicit message that every player in the global antiquities trade is within their sights.”

Apparently the prosecutors are attempting to send an international message to collectors: check your provenance or risk future prosecutions. That seems a noble goal at the macro level. However in this case, the defense attorney’s are angry at this tactic as Francesco Isolabella, one of True’s attorney’s said it was beyond Ms. Rizzo’s purview to “come up with inductive or deductive theories”, and she was making “evaluations that only a prosecutor can make…She should stick to identifying Etruscan vases.” The True/Hecht trial will drag on, but I think there has been a gear-shift in the way the antiquities market seems to operate, at least in some sectors.

Last week, a bronze sculpture of artemis was sold by the Albright-Knox museum for $28.6 million at an auction, a record for both sculpture and antiquities. One of the main factors in the high selling price may have been the sculptures clean provenance, which was purchased from a Manhattan dealer in 1953, long before the 1970 UNESCO Convention which is often used as a benchmark for provenance.

Both the Met and the MFA Boston agreed to return antiquities to Italy. Italy wants the Getty to return 52 objects in its collection, and the Getty has offered to return many of them, but Italy wants all of them back and won’t accept a so-called partial repatriation. Private collectors donated many of these works to these institutions, and in exchange they get considerable tax benefits. If the Hecht/True trial results in a conviction, I would anticipate more prosecutions and threats of prosecutions by other collectors and dealers.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Vanishing Heritage in the Cradle of Civilization


Things are looking increasingly grim in Iraq these days, with the US considering arming Sunni groups that once attacked coalition forces. Soon after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, western journalists visited the Iraqi Museum in Baghdad and reported incorrectly that 170,000 objects were stolen from the museum. More careful reporting soon accurately placed that number far lower, and current estimates seem to indicate that a still alarming 3,000 objects are still missing, with about 47 main exhibition artifacts missing.

Thus I always maintain a healthy bit of skepticism when articles come out detailing the loss of archaeological context and heritage in Iraq. The article last Friday by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian titled “In Iraq’s four-year looting frenzy, the allies have become the vandals”even viewed skeptically reveals some very troubling things about the way archaeological sites are treated by coalition forces.

The catalyst for the discussion was a presentation by Abbas al-Hussaini, the head of Iraq’s board of antiquities and heritage to the British Museum. He detailed a number of disturbing things. The former head of the antiquities board in Iraq, Donny George, left for a teaching position in New York, fearing for his life. Today the national museum “is not open but shut… Its doors are bricked up, it is surrounded by concrete walls and its exhibits are sandbagged. Even the staff cannot get inside.” A 10th century caravenserai of Khan al-Raba was used to explode captured weapons. Looters are better armed than the Iraqi forces seeking to protect the ancient monuments. Two 4,000 year-old cities, Isin and Shurnpak, have been demolished by looting pits. The 11 teams Hussaini has organized travel the countryside attempting to retrieve any artifacts the looters have left behind. Even muslim sites are subject to destruction, with a number of bombings of mosques from the 10th and 11th centuries

When I was in Istanbul in May, I saw some of the glazed bricks from the Ishtar gate leading to Babylon, and they are stunning. The lion image above was very impressive. For me then perhaps the most disturbing claims detail the destruction taking place at the ancient city of Babylon:

Hussaini confirmed a report… on America’s conversion of Nebuchadnezzar’s great city of Babylon into the hanging gardens of Halliburton. This meant a 150-hectare camp for 2,000 troops. In the process the 2,500-year-old brick pavement to the Ishtar Gate was smashed by tanks and the gate itself damaged. The archaeology-rich subsoil was bulldozed to fill sandbags, and large areas covered in compacted gravel for helipads and car parks. Babylon is being rendered archaeologically barren.

Despite some unnecessary snarking by Jenkins here, the destruction at Babylon is a grave tragedy. He does conveniently overlook some facts though. The coalition forces only seem to be continuing the destruction and disdain Saddam Hussein had for the site when he was in power. This slide show taken by US Marine Gunnery Sergeant Daniel O’Connell in 2003 shows the ancient city, the unfortunate modern reconstruction by Hussein on top of the archaeological site, and the modern palace he built where marines first stayed. The colonel in charge of the site apologized last year, and UNESCO officials are even considering developing the place into a tourist attraction at some point.

It seems very unfortunate that coalition forces, in the face of the looting of so many sites, should have blundered so badly at Babylon, which is in one of the most secure regions of Iraq. The Geneva Convention dictates that forces should treat opposing cultural heritage with care. Also, though the US and UK have failed to implement the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict(because it might restrict their ability to use nuclear arms), they notionally abide by its tenets.

The US is doing a good job of policing its antiquities market, as a Fox News cameraman was arrested for smuggling Iraqi antiquities into the country recently. The UK also has legislation preventing the import of Iraqi antiquities. Jenkins gets a final jab in at the Department of Culture Media and Sport which seems far more concerned with the upcoming London Olympics than the illicit cultural property market. I wonder if the £400,000 recently spent on the unfortunate mascot would have been better served policing the antiquities market. The Met’s Art and Antiquities squad has only 3 full time investigators, and is in jeopardy of further budget cuts. But only so much can be done when provenance or a title history is not routinely given during transactions. As long as the market is hidden from view, looters will continue to find purchasers for their ill-gotten gains.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

How to Repatriate?

I got a very interesting email yesterday from someone wondering how they should return a piece of marble to Greece. Apparently the object was given as a gift sometime in the 1960s. She has contacted the Greek embassy but they have not been very helpful it seems. Perhaps she was not speaking to the right people, I don’t know. But in a time when Greece is becoming increasingly vocal about repatriation, shouldn’t it make it easier for individuals who want to do the right thing and send objects back? Also, should she make sure to get some kind of immunity for potential charges? Might a good Samaritan be possibly opening the door for criminal charges by the Greeks, even though that would seem to be a horrible blunder on their part?

I’m afraid I didn’t have any good advice for her. I suggested contacting some museums in her area, who perhaps have some better contacts in the Greek Culture Ministry. Does anyone have any practical suggestions for someone who wants to return a piece of cultural property to a source nation?

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Showdown on the Strait of Gibraltar


The dispute between Spain and Odyssey Marine has taken an interesting turn. A Spanish court has ordered the interception of two of Odyssey’s vessels if they decide to leave Gibraltar. The two ships are currently moored in Gibraltar. The Spanish Culture Minister Carmen Calvo said “International laws are behind us and if anything outside the law occurred it will have an answer, and what is ours will return to Spain.”

Odyssey has been secretive about where exactly they discovered the record shipwreck. Some have speculated that the wreck was in international waters off the coast of England. However Spain apparently feels otherwise, especially as Odyssey vessels were doing marine research in Spanish waters recently.

Over at Opinio Juris, Julian Ku has some interesting things to say, as does Anton Zeilinger in the comments. It seems the international boundaries of the territorial waters are very unclear. The maritime boundary between Spain and Gibraltar and between Spain and Morocco is unresolved. Even if Odyssey wanted to send its ships through the Suez canal, its not clear when they would be passing through Spanish waters.

The upshot is, states need to resolve their maritime boundaries. For a very interesting example of that problem, in the Adriatic, you can see an article my colleague Jernej Letnar Cernic has co-authored with Matej Avbelj, The Conundrum of the Piran Bay: Slovenia V. Croatia – The Case of Maritime Delimitation, forthcoming in the Journal of International Law & Policy, available on SSRN.

Spain is taking a very aggressive line with Odyssey marine. Perhaps they are attempting to get Odyssey to reveal the location of the wreck. Spain wants to be real sure the wreck was in international waters, or it may want to send its own salvage and archaeological teams to study the wreck. The dispute will certainly continue, and the forthcoming federal admiralty case in Florida is going to be very interesting.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Cultural Property Internationalism: A Raw Deal for Afghanistan? (UPDATE)


Cultural property internationalism is the idea that cultural objects have a value for all mankind. Unfortunately, sometimes taking that position can produce unsatisfactory results for source nations.

Robin Pogrebin has an interesting article in today’s New York Times on the traveling exhibition of Afghanistan’s Bactrian Gold. The National Geographic Society has reached a deal which pays $1million to Afghanistan for display of the hoard, plus 40% of all profits. Sounds like a great deal for Afghanistan to generate revenue and engender some international appreciation for its heritage.

That’s not the case apparently:

Lynne Munson, the former deputy chairwoman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, which helped finance the cataloging of the Afghan treasures, said the arrangement would leave Afghanistan with “40 percent of absolutely nothing,” because expenses would be significant.

“This is a travesty,” she said in a telephone interview from Washington. “The Bactrian hoard is simply the most valuable possession of the poorest people on earth. To ask them to lend it and give so little in return is unconscionable.”

She said she had ceased working for the endowment in 2005 because of internal conflicts within the agency over arrangements for the show.

The protocol accord signed over the weekend says that the exhibition revenue going to the Afghans will be derived from the fees paid by the museums as hosts of the show and from corporate sponsorships. It does not guarantee them proceeds from ticket, catalog or merchandise sales.

A similar exhibition by the Egyptians in 1994 earned that country over $10 million in every city visited. Some of the pieces were displayed in Paris and Turin, but the details of that exhibition were not made known.

I don’t know very much about how much a source nation like Afghanistan should expect to clear in an exhibition like this. Thomas Hoving and Lynne Munson certainly feel Afghanistan got slighted.

Though the Egyptian exhibitions seem to indicate that Afghanistan should have held out for more money, this may also serve a very important cultural mission for Afghans. Many foreigners view that nation as a hostile place with mountains and terrorists, or the source for much of the heroin trade. In reality it was once a very important stop on the silk road and the home to some very advanced ancient civilizations. Everyone knows that Egypt has a great archaeological heritage, perhaps this exhibitions will change the perception of Afghanistan and allow other exhibitions in the future to garner more funds for Afghanistan in the future.

UPDATE:

I missed Lee Rosenbaum’s excellent criticism of the Pogrebin article. I’ve come to increasingly rely on RSS feeds, and that site doesn’t have one. Here’s an excerpt:

There are so many problematic aspects surrounding Robin Pogrebin‘s story in yesterday’s NY Times about the allegedly “unconscionable” financial arrangements between the National Geographic Society and the government of Afghanistan, for a proposed tour of that country’s Bactrian hoard, that it’s hard to know where to begin. Critics cited in the article charge that Afghanistan is being shortchanged in the deal although, from the Times account, it’s difficult to ascertain exactly what the financial parameters of the arrangement are.


Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Spain Sues Odyssey Marine

A couple weeks ago I discussed Odyssey Marine’s discovery of what may have been the largest-ever shipwreck recovery. It seems now that Spain has decided to challenge Odyssey Marine’s title to the salvaged treasure. Julian Ku over at Opinio Juris has some thoughts, speculating that “Spain would either have to pay salvage costs if they retain title, or if the wreck is deemed abandoned, then its ‘finders/keepers.'”Here is an excerpt of the AP Story:

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — The Spanish government has filed claims in U.S. federal court over a shipwreck that a Florida firm found laden with Colonial-era treasure, an attorney said Thursday.

If the vessel was Spanish or was removed from that country’s waters, any treasure would belong to Spain, said James Goold, an attorney representing the government.

“It’s a very well established principle under Spanish, U.S. and international law that a government such as the kingdom of Spain has not abandoned its sunken ships or sunken property, and that a company like Odyssey Marine Exploration may not conduct recovery operations without authorization by the government,” he said.

“The kingdom of Spain has not authorized any such operations by Odyssey, and by these legal actions it will see the return of any Spanish property Odyssey has recovered,” Goold said of the claims filed Wednesday.

Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. CEO John Morris said in a statement Thursday that “such a move was anticipated by Odyssey and is considered normal in Admiralty cases.”

The company has previously said Odyssey would notify all claimants once it conclusively determined the ship’s identity. Odyssey said it was not found in Spanish territorial waters.

“If there is anything Spanish involved, they want to work with the Spanish government and be certain the Spanish government is completely satisfied with the result,” said Allen Von Spiegelfeld, Odyssey’s attorney in Tampa. “I don’t think the rights of the Spanish government would have been threatened.”

The company announced two weeks ago that it had discovered a shipwreck containing 500,000 gold and silver coins somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. The Tampa-based company said the site was outside any country’s territorial waters but would not give the exact location or name of the ship.

Odyssey has said that the ship was not in Spanish territorial waters and was not the HMS Sussex, a shipwreck that Odyssey recently got permission from the Spanish government to search for in the Strait of Gibraltar.

But Spain has called the new discovery suspicious and said the booty may have come from a wrecked Spanish galleon.

In Britain, the find generated press reports that Odyssey had salvaged the wreck of the long-sought British vessel Merchant Royal, which sank in bad weather off England in 1641. Odyssey has not confirmed or denied these reports.

Assuming the wreck was found in international waters, I’m not sure Spain has a tenable claim here. This may just be a perfunctory admiralty action by the Spanish to make Odyssey prove that the wreck was outside Spanish waters, and that it was not a Spanish ship. It is an interesting case, and I’ll continue to post information here as it becomes available.

Another interesting theme to all this is that it will be the colonial powers that have a potential claim here, either England or Spain if the wreck were discovered in their territorial waters. The new world civilizations who were stripped of the precious metal before it was sent back to Europe would of course have no claim whatsoever. On a moral sliding scale, this would seem to render Spain’s claim a bit less sympathetic in my view.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com