Month: September 2007

Yale and Peru Reach a "New Model" Agreement (UPDATE)


Randy Kennedy reports in today’s NY Times that Yale University has agreed to return artifacts excavated by Hiram Bingham from Machu Picchu in 1912 and 1914. The parties called it a “new model of international cooperation providing for the collaborative stewardship of cultural and natural treasures.” I think that’s exactly right, and appears to be an exciting and beneficial compromise for all sides. See my earlier post on this dispute here.

Negotiations have been ongoing, but pressures in Peru and Peru’s extremely rigid cultural patrimony laws made it difficult to work out a compromise. Talks broke down in 2006, and it was rumored Peru was considering legal action, though I didn’t see any kind of tenable claim. It would have made headlines though.

What is the nature of the agreement? It looks to be a kind of lease which creates “an extensive collaborative relationship between Yale and Peru”. Peru will receive title to all the objects, but many will remain in Connecticut. There will be an international traveling exhibition, and proceeds will help build a much-needed new museum and research center in Cuzco. Yale will also provide funds to establish a scholarly exchange program. As Yale president Richard C. Levin said, “We aim to create a new model for resolving competing interests in cultural property,… This can best be achieved by building a collaborative relationship — one which involves scholars and researchers from Yale and Peru — that serves science and human understanding.” Compromise is often an easy policy solution to advocate, but with respect to cultural policy it’s often the best solution.

UPDATE:

NPR’s Morning Edition has a good story this morning where you can hear the comments of some of the parties.

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

Iraqi Cultural Heritage

In today’s Independent Robert Fisk has a special investigation on Iraqi cultural heritage. It’s an interesting account, though it gives only one side of the argument. I’m not sure what the special investigation was, he seems to be relying in large measure on one Lebanese archaeologist. Here’s an excerpt:

In a long and devastating appraisal to be published in December, Lebanese archaeologist Joanne Farchakh says that armies of looters have not spared “one metre of these Sumerian capitals that have been buried under the sand for thousands of years.

“They systematically destroyed the remains of this civilisation in their tireless search for sellable artefacts: ancient cities, covering an estimated surface area of 20 square kilometres, which – if properly excavated – could have provided extensive new information concerning the development of the human race.

“Humankind is losing its past for a cuneiform tablet or a sculpture or piece of jewellery that the dealer buys and pays for in cash in a country devastated by war. Humankind is losing its history for the pleasure of private collectors living safely in their luxurious houses and ordering specific objects for their collection.”

Ms Farchakh, who helped with the original investigation into stolen treasures from the Baghdad Archaeological Museum in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, says Iraq may soon end up with no history.

“There are 10,000 archaeological sites in the country. In the Nassariyah area alone, there are about 840 Sumerian sites; they have all been systematically looted. Even when Alexander the Great destroyed a city, he would always build another. But now the robbers are destroying everything because they are going down to bedrock. What’s new is that the looters are becoming more and more organised with, apparently, lots of money.

“Quite apart from this, military operations are damaging these sites forever. There’s been a US base in Ur for five years and the walls are cracking because of the weight of military vehicles. It’s like putting an archaeological site under a continuous earthquake.”

I’m afraid I have a pessimistic view of conflict and cultural property. Conflict always leads to theft and destruction. The activities of the US military in and around some of these archaeological sites is indeed troubling as I’ve written about before. But I have a bit of skepticism about the looting of sites. Is this something that only began after the Invasion in 2003? I’m not sure about the answer to that question. But though the 1954 Hague Convention is mentioned briefly, no mention is made of the efforts of Marine Colonel Matthew Bogdanos, the import restrictions in the US and the UK on Iraqi objects, or any other efforts.

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

Moving Cultural Property


Alasdair Palmer has half a good article titled The greatest art should not be moving in yesterday’s Telegraph. Why half? He only gives one view of the argument against transporting cultural property (though Italian Senator Paulo Amato surely agrees).

The background for the article is the exhibition at the British Museum of 20 terracotta figures from the grave of Chinese emperor Qin Shihuangdi. It is the largest number of these figures to ever leave China. Palmer does a good job of giving the argument against transporting works. But only by summarizing the work of Michael Daley and Michael Savage in the ArtWatch UK Journal, which I have been unable to track down.

Palmer cites the following:

In 1994 the Tate lent two Turners to a Frankfurt museum, but they were stolen and were not returned until a £2 million ransom was paid.

  • Canova’s Three Graces developed a crack when it was transported to Madrid in 1998.
  • A Swiss Air jet carrying Picasso’s Le Peintre was lost when a Swiss Air flight crashed off Nova Scotia.
  • Speculation exists that some of the 251 Assyrian objects the British Museum shipped to Shangai in 2006 were partially damaged.
  • The Goya which went missing last year is cited as well. Though it was incorrectly assumed it came from Spain. It was actually on its way from Cleveland. It was also recovered.

Those are some good examples of the drawbacks; but these traveling exhibitions do a great deal of good as well. It promotes cultural internationalism, improves access, allows institutions and source nations to raise funds. Most importantly traveling exhibitions allow for compromise between ardent cultural nationalists, and those who think art should be accessible internationally. There are right and wrong ways to go about it to be sure, and there are risks. But Palmer gives only half the picture, and even that is inaccurate. Perhaps the biggest inaccuracy: there are 1,000 of these figures excavated, and perhaps as many as 6,000 more which have yet to be unearthed. Are the risks of damage to a select few enough to outweigh the benefits? I think not.

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

More on Antiquities Leasing

Can antiquities leasing form a good compromise between strict regulation, which can be counterproductive, and the cultural property trade? Tim Harford has an interesting article in Slate today, Rent-A-Treasure: How to Eliminate the Black Market in Stolen Antiquities. He talks more about the working paper Antiquities: Long-Term Leases as an Alternative to Export Bans, co-authored by Michael Kremer and Tom Wilkening. Kremer and Wilkening take an economic perspective and argue antiquities leasing is a better alternative to the current rigid regulation which ends up fostering a black market.

Leasing is an exciting idea as I’ve argued before; but not in every case. The Slate article does a good job of painting the problem in broad strokes, and traces the idea to the antiquities controversy which is probably the most widely known, the Parthenon Marbles. Some kind of sharing agreement between the British Museum and Greece might work in theory, but neither side would be willing to undergo such a compromise in my view. A better use of leasing would be in developing source nations in response to the illicit trade of today, not long-standing repatriation disputes. Source nation antiquities leasing could produce revenue, foster international appreciation, all while objects are still under the control of the source nation

The first mention of the idea, that I am aware, came in 1993 by Nusin Asgari. The former head of the Antiquities Museum in Istanbul, Turkey, argued that ten-year loan agreements between major museums might reduce the temptation to acquire antiquities illicitly. (Suna Erdem, New Trojan War Highlights Pillage of Turkey’s Past, Reuters, Oct. 13, 1993, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File).

There are a few versions of this idea in practice, including the blockbuster King Tut exhibition, which I would venture to say was more about showing off the gold than anything else, and that seemed to be Tyler Cowen’s take as well.

But a far better example is the Menil Collection Byzantine Fresco Chapel Museum in Houston, pictured here. The frescoes were stolen during the Turkish occupation of Cyprus in the 1980’s. With the permission of the Church of Cyprus, the Menil Foundation agreed to a long-term lease and restoration. This is a far better example than the King Tut exhibition, which seemed far more concerned with earning revenue than education or conisseurship. I haven’t seen the chapel in Houston, but the final product looks stunning. It’s an example of what the antiquities market can and should produce, and everyone wins.

There was also a great deal of uproar over Lynne Munson’s criticism over the National Geographic Society’s deal with Afghanistan to display the Bactrian gold, which I talked about here. Are folks aware of other good, or bad antiquities leasing schemes? I’d be very interested to know, if you would care to share them in the comments section.

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

The Rape of Europa

This new film, “The Rape of Europa” is just being released in New York this week, and should start to make the art house circuit soon. Metacritic seems to be giving the film good marks so far.

It details the spoliation by the Nazis, and the efforts of allied soldiers known as the monument men to track down the works. The theft was on such a grand scale that the issues are still fresh today. Poland and Germany have engaged in a very bitter dispute in recent weeks. The death of Bruno Lohse revealed he had been storing a looted Pissarro in a Swiss bank vault since the end of the war. The Altmann case and the Klimts are given a prominent role as well.

I am eager to see the film, but just watching this trailer I’m struck by how much more powerful images and music are than the articles I write. I can give an academic view, but seeing the works and the black and white pictures bring the story much more depth and emotion. Whether that produces better cultural policy solutions is questionable I think. Perhaps we are allowing emotion to cloud our judgment in some of these cases?

I haven’t seen the film of course, but we shouldn’t put the blame on Germany alone, though they do rightfully deserve the most criticism. The loss of art and antiquities is an inevitable part of conflict. Russian forces plundered countless works from East Germany, and allied bombs destroyed medieval buildings in Dresden and at Montecassino. An American GI also stole the Quedlinberg treasures, and his family was able to sell them back to the church in the 90’s. In the end, the movie should speak to a fundamental question which still plagues us: what is the value of cultural property? Is it essential to a people’s heritage? Is it worth sacrificing lives or other economic development?

The NY Times has a short overview, as does Lee Rosenbaum.

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

More Thefts in France


The French Culture Ministry has promised tighter security after another serious theft, this one from the Perpignan Cathedral (pictured here). The thieves took twenty objects, some dating to the 17th Century. Here is the AP wire story:

Thieves stole more than 20 religious objects dating back to the 17th century from a cathedral in the southwestern French city of Perpignan, the Culture Ministry said.

Culture Minister Christine Albanel was visiting the Saint Jean the Baptist cathedral in Perpignan, as well as meeting police and regional cultural officials, on Thursday to express her outrage at the theft, the ministry said.

More than 20 pieces dating from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, including plates and chalices for Communion, were taken overnight Tuesday, the ministry said.

Stephane Brunelle, a spokesman for Roman Catholic authorities in Perpignan, said the thieves took the most valuable items. Though beer cans were strewn on the floor, investigators suspect that may have been an attempt to confuse police and make the crime look like vandalism rather than a well-organized plot, he said.

Albanel, during her visit to the cathedral, said she would push for tougher sentencing for those who burglarize historic buildings.

Churches are vulnerable. I’m not sure increased criminal penalties will prevent this problem, but it can’t hurt I suppose. Increased security and stricter provenance checks are the answer. I am often amazed at the valuable works hanging in Europe’s out-of-the way churches.

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

The Taliban Attacks Another Buddha


A very troubling story from Pakistan. On Monday, armed men attempted to damage this giant Buddha in the Swat valley in Pakistan. The BBC has a good report. The men arrived in the night, drilled holes in the rock, and filled them with dynamite. There was damage to the rock above the carving, but the actual carving was unharmed. The carving is considered the second-largest in Asia behind only the now-destroyed Bamiyan Buddhas.

I’m not sure how much can be done to protect sites in this part of the world. I know there is a UNESCO Convention on the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage, but that kind of multilateral treaty seems ill-equipped to prevent this kind of willful and senseless destruction.

(hat tip to David Nishimura at Cronaca)

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

Trouble Ahead for UK Museum Funding


Back in July, Martin Bailey wrote in the Art Newspaper that the National Gallery is “facing its most serious acquisition crisis for over 100 years, with the threat of losing pictures on loan worth around £200m.” Why the cause for alarm? A number of works currently on loan at the National Gallery will be going up for sale, and public funds are scarce. The works on the market include:

  • Rubens’ Apotheosis of King James I, a sketch for the Banqueting House in Whitehall just down the street from Trafalgar Square. It was created by Rubens around 1629-30 in preparation for Indigo Jones’ new building. It has been on display since 1981, and is owned by Viscount Hampden’s family trust.
  • Five works by Poussin, known as The Sacraments; pictured here is one of the five, The Eucharist. Originally there were seven paintings. One was lost to fire in the 19th century, while the other is on display in the National Gallery in Washington D.C. The remaining five belong to the Duke of Rutland.
  • Also, Titian’s Portrait of a Young Man is up for sale as well. The National Gellery offered “the after-tax equivalent of £55m” for the work two years ago, but Lord Halifax rejected the offer.

The sale of these important works is going to put pressure on the funding arrangement, which has been substantially cut in recent months to prepare for the London Olympics. The Heritage Lottery Fund set has previously set aside £80m for arts projects. This year that number was reduced to £40m, but in the next two years the number will be decreased to £20m. As Giles Waterfield’s editorial in the Art Newspaper makes clear,

When the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) was set up in 1994, the trustees’ prime priority was to update Britain’s museums. This certainly needed doing: since repairs made after World War II, remarkably little had been spent on the fabric of museums, or on new construction. Compared to France, Germany or the United States, the number and quality of new museum buildings were laughable.

This will all change to free up funds for the London Olympic bid. As Charlotte Higgins wrote in the Guardian recently “The lottery fund was due to lose an initial £143m to the Olympics, but in March a further £90m was taken”.

I’m not an art historian, and I don’t feel qualified to comment on whether these works warrant these sums, or if all of them are integral to the cultural heritage of the UK. It is a pity that arts funding has been sacrificed for the Olympic bid to this extent. The decision to sell these works will also continue to put pressure on the funding system, especially given the tremendous upswing in the art market. The UK export restrictions are a model, and one which cuts a great compromise between retention of art and an open market. Those works which rise to the Waverley Criteria are delayed export until domestic funding can be secured. That system though depends on the availability of funds. If arts funding is decreased in this manner, such efforts will become more difficult.


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