Derek Fincham

Compensation for Restitution Experts

Elise Viebeck, a student writer for the Claremont Independent has an outstanding article about the conflicts of interest which arise when history and art history experts are brought in to assist the heirs of victims who lost valuable art to the Nazis during World War II. She details the actions of a CMC History Professor, Jonathan Petropoulos.

The article asks an important question: How should these experts, whose specialized knowledge can bring about the restitution of ultra-valuable masterworks be compensated? Swiss prosecutor Ivo Hoppler raided a Swiss safe in the Summer of 2007 as part of a “three-nation probe of a German art dealer accused of conspiring with an American at historian to withold a painting by French impressionist”. I talked about the discovery of the work at issue, Camille Pisarro’s Le Quai Malaquais, Printemps last summer, but was unaware of this controversy.

Here’s an excerpt of Viebeck’s interesting story:

The story of the Pissarro begins with Zurich resident Gisela Fischer, 78, who is of Jewish descent. She and her family fled Vienna in 1938 two days after the Nazi Anschluss. The Gestapo looted their home, and among the stolen items was a painting by impressionist Camille Pissarro, Le Quai Malaquais, Printemps.

After the war, Fischer’s father successfully located and reclaimed many of his family’s stolen assets. After her father’s death in 1995, Fischer concentrated her efforts on the Pissarro which had remained elusive. In early 2001, she registered the painting with the Art Loss Register (ALR), a London-based for-profit company involved in stolen art recovery.

The ALR began to research the painting’s provenance, or history of ownership, in the hope of ascertaining its location. There was no initial financial arrangement, as at that time the ALR did not charge for Holocaust and World War II art claims…

On January 8, 2007, at a meeting in Munich, a representative of the ALR gave Fischer a message from Petropoulos. He wrote in a letter dated December 7, 2006 that he had located the painting in Switzerland and was communicating with an unnamed contact of its owner. The owner was a “foundation created by the heirs of the person who purchased [the painting] in 1957.”

The foundation, he wrote, wished to remain anonymous.

Two days after the meeting in Munich, Radcliffe also sent Fischer a letter, this time to request a finder’s fee for the organization’s success in finding the Pissarro in Switzerland. Despite its earlier commitment not to charge Holocaust claimants, the company had changed its charging policy for Holocaust art claims, telling claimants that the company could complete restitution “at far less cost and often more efficiently” than the expensive lawyers who took some cases. The meeting with the ALR in January 2007 was the first Fischer knew of the ALR’s changed policy…

For the Pissarro case, Radcliffe proposed an elaborate compensation scheme, including 20 percent of the first $1 million, 15 percent of the second million and 10 percent of any additional value of the painting. Included in his price was a stipend for Professor Petropoulos, who had requested $100,000 from the ALR for his services.

In a letter dated January 23, Fischer’s lawyer, Dr. Norbert Kückelmann, rejected the ALR’s proposal. Three days later Petropoulos met with Fischer at the Hotel St. Gotthart in Zurich to try a new arrangement…

Radcliffe and Sarah Jackson of the Art Loss Register also went to Zurich, only to find themselves excluded from the dealings. “We went expecting to be included in the meetings with Ms. Fischer only to discover that they had already had meetings without us. We realized we had been cut out,” Radcliffe told the CI.

At the hotel, Petropoulos and Peter Griebert, a Munich art dealer, showed her digital photos of the Pissarro, claiming to have taken them that morning. According to an account published in ARTNews magazine, they did not give further details about its location or the identity of its owners at that time.

It’s a very interesting account, and I don’t think Petropoulos, nor even the Art Loss Register are painted in a favorable light based on this account. Though much nazi restitution litigation rests on the assumption that the law should compensate the victims of the holocaust and other misappropriation, the engine driving these claims are the large sums of money these works can bring at auction. I think an interesting issue which needs to be researched in more detail is how and to what extent these restitution experts owe a duty to claimants.

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

Is culture a basic need?

Dheera Sujan, presenter of Earthbeat on Radio Netherlands has an interesting account of something called a Cultural Emergency Response, sponsored by the Prince Claus Fund. You can listen to the show here.

It’s an international aid organization which both attempts to rescue and preserve culture during times of conflict, when “culture is the first to go and often the last thing on anyone’s mind.” The organization aims to prevent acts of destruction such as the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, the Serb bombing the library of Sarajevo, and indeed the loss to Iraq’s heritage when the US the UK, and the other coalition countries invaded Iraq in 2003.

Aid organizations often don’t focus on cultural loss, they are tasked with other matters such as humanitarian and other assistance; the CER attempts to fill t;his gap. Els van der Plas, director of the Prince Claus Fund says “We feel that culture is a basic need and we think that rescuing culture can give people a sense of hope and direction.”

When a disaster or armed conflict occurs, an application can be submitted for up to 35,000 euros for a project, so long as it is completed within six months. The CER has sponsored a number of projects. In Nablus it helped stabilize the foundations of historic houses which were being damaged by the widening of roads used by the Israeli army; in Morocco, it funded the rebuilding of a mosque destroyed by an earthquake. In Afghanistan, it restored a synagogue in Heart which had been damaged by flood in conjunction with the Aga Khan Trust. As the radio piece argues, “the Jewish community is long gone from Afghanistan but the beauty of the building is undeniable. It’s also a beautiful metaphor for tolerance: a Western and a Muslim [organization] collaborating with primarily Muslim workers together to rebuild a Jewish synagogue in a Muslim country where the Jews are gone – so that their history may remain.”

These kinds of rebuilding efforts are symbolic and a powerful symbol. One wonders if the US and other coalition forces would have had a better result in Iraq and Afghanistan had they spent more time and effort on this kind of cultural aid, rather than what one Iraqi predicted for his nation after the invasion “Democracy! Whiskey! Sexy!“.

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

Update on the Baghdad Museum

Martin Bailey has a very interesting interview with John Curtis, the Keeper of the Middle East at the British Museum on the current state of protection of archaeological sites in Iraq, now that we are approaching the five-year anniversary of the invasion, and the looting of the museum which soon followed. Here’s an excerpt:

TAN: How serious is looting of archaeological sites?

JC: The situation has been very bad, particularly in the south, at sites such as Isin, Tell Jokha (ancient Umma) and Bismaya (ancient Adab). However, recently there seems to have been an improvement. Professor Elizabeth Stone of Stony Brook University in New York State is monitoring satellite images of sites for evidence of digging. There now seems to be quite a falling off in the digging.

TAN: Why the improvement?

JC: Dr Abbas al-Hussainy, until recently the head of antiquities, had good contacts with tribal groups in the south and he stressed to them the importance of preserving sites. Another reason is that the market seems to have dried up, and there is no point in digging if you cannot realise quick profits. There may have been an improvement in policing of sites, but this is very recent, only in the past few months.

TAN: Are looted Iraqi antiquities turning up in western markets?

JC: There doesn’t seem to have been much Iraqi material appearing in London or western markets, and very little on eBay. There may be collectors buying in the Gulf states and the Far East, but this is speculation. Probably a lot of the looted material has remained in Iraq.

TAN: How much damage has been caused to sites by Coalition troops?

JC: Iraq is a vast archaeological site. You cannot have military manoeuvres without causing a great deal of damage.

I expect a number of new five-year what now retrospectives on the looting of the Baghdad museum, and the ongoing looting in Iraq. It seems to me that this issue is still under-reported, particularly by American journalists. What are American and Iraqi officials doing to safeguard sites? Sadly, I think they are doing very little, because the security situation in the country remains unstable.

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

Should Cultural Property be used to satisfy judgments?

There has been increasing attention paid lately to the use of art and antiquities to satisfy unrelated judgments against nations. In 2005, Russia had a $1 billion shipment of 54 paintings from Moscow’s Pushkin Fine Arts Museum seized at the Swiss border to satisfy Russian debts owed to Noga.

Similarly, in 2003 a group of American plaintiffs won a $90 million judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran for a suicide bombing which took place in Jerusalem in 1997. James Wawrzniak Jr., a recent Harvard Law graduate has posted an excellent working paper on bepress titled Rubin v. The Islamic Republic of Iran: A Struggle for control of Persian Antiquities in America. It is likely to be published next fall.

Hamas claimed responsibility for the bombing in question, and the Rubin plaintiffs brought civil actions against Hamas, and also to Iran for providing material support and finance for the bombing. Experts testified that Iran provided both economic assistance from between $20 and $50 million dollars, and also terrorist training. Now I’m sure many readers would be quick to point out the US has given similar aid to similar groups, perhaps even during this Sunni awakening in Iraq, in which the US is essentially paying Sunnis to stop attacking coalition forces. I imagine Iran would have had a vigorous potential defense, however a default judgment was entered, whereby Iran essentially ignored the suit. Iran has since changed their stance after the Rubin plaintiffs decided to execute the $90 million judgment by claiming Persian antiquities in museum collections across the country. I’ll defer to Wawrzniak’s analysis as to what has transpired, but this litigation seems destined to last a number of more years.

One one level I can sympathize with plaintiffs who attempt to satisfy their judgments in this way. However, such a strategy, if taken to its logical conclusion would have troubling consequences for the cross-border movement of works of art. This was an issue in the recent dispute over the Royal Academy display of “From Russia: French and Russian Master Paintings 1870-1925 From Moscow and St. Petersburg”. Russia nearly backed out of the deal, eager to avoid a replay of the Portriat of Wally litigation.

The display required an act of Parliament to grant special immunity to prevent the works from being claimed by descendants of the original owners from whom many of the works were summarily seized during the Bolshevik revolution.

The question is, are the cultural benefits Great Britain and Russia share by viewing these masterworks, many never seen in London before? I think there is, and this cross-border movement of art is an important ideal which should be preserved, the recent string of nazi spoliation, and terrorist and other claims are important, and those victims deserve their day in court. However it should not be at the expense of our collective cultural heritage.

(Photo: Wassily Kandinsky Composition VII, 1913 on loan to the Royal Academy)

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

The Doctrine of Discovery, the US and New Zealand

The Doctrine of Discovery is an international legal principle which justifies property rights over new-found territories. The doctrine is still very much alive today. Russia evoked it when it placed its flag on the Arctic Ocean floor in 2007 to claim the potential oil and gas reserves there.

Robert J. Miller, of Lewis & Clark, and Jacinta Ruru, of the University of Otago, have posted a new comparative law working paper on SSRN, An Indigenous Lens into Comparative Law: The Doctrine of Discovery in the United States and New Zealand.

Here’s the abstract:

North America and New Zealand were colonized by England under an international legal principle that is known today as the Doctrine of Discovery. When Europeans set out to explore and exploit new lands in the fifteenth through the twentieth centuries, they justified their sovereign and property claims over these territories and the Indigenous people with the Discovery Doctrine. This legal principle was justified by religious and ethnocentric ideas of European and Christian superiority over the other cultures, religions, and races of the world. The Doctrine provided that newly-arrived Europeans automatically acquired property rights in the lands of Native people and gained political and commercial rights over the inhabitants. England was an avid supporter of the Doctrine and used it around the world. The English colonial governments and colonists in New Zealand and America, and later the American state and federal governments and New Zealand governments, all utilized Discovery and still use it today to exercise legal rights to Native lands and to control their Indigenous people. In this article, the authors, an American Indian and a New Zealand Maori, use a comparative law methodology to trace and compare the legal and historical application of Discovery in both countries. The evidence uncovered helps to explain the current state of United States Indian law and the New Zealand law relating to Maoris. While the countries did not apply the elements of Discovery in the exact same manner, and at the same time periods, the similarities of their use of Discovery are striking and not the least bit surprising since the Doctrine was English law. Viewing American and New Zealand history in light of the international law Doctrine of Discovery helps to expand one’s knowledge of both countries and their Indigenous peoples.

It’s a great read, and the doctrine of discovery has a lot to do with the difficulty cultural policy makes had in formulating a cohesive national and international legal regime to handle, regulate, and restrict the trade in cultural objects. Much of the very restrictive cultural patrimony laws in many nations of origin can be directly attributed I think to the massive cultural and economic drain which took place when European colonists discovered new lands.

(Hat tip)

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

Debate on the Portable Antiquities Scheme (UPDATE)

The domestic legal and policy framework for portable antiquities in England and Wales is unique, and differs from the typical approach. Three things set it apart from most other nations of origin. First is the limited state ownership of undiscovered antiquities, the second compensation to finders of the full price of their finds if the find is acquired legally, and perhaps most importantly is the legalization of indiscriminate digging in many areas.

Metal detecting is legal in the UK, and is only prohibited in specially designated areas, known as scheduled ancient monuments.

Only limited classes of objects become the property of the crown when they are discovered. This includes objects composed of at least 10% gold or silver, multiple ancient coins, and prehistoric base-metals, which are objects such as bronze. Pottery and carved objects become the property of the finder.

All other objects become the property of the finder, and in some cases landowners and finders share the value of finds. Finders of objects encompassed under the Treasure Act are entitled to the full market value of the find, as estimated by an evaluation committee.

The PAS is a voluntary scheme which fills the gaps left by the treasure act. There exists some confusion about the scheme, as a lot of commentators incorrectly talk about the scheme as shorthand for compensating finders of antiquities. Such a measure already exists outwith the PAS. However, the PAS is a voluntary network, organized by a national network of finds liaison officers. They speak with metal detecting groups about good practice, conduct community outreach programs, and most importantly record finds. They are often based in local museums or archaeology departments. In some cases, museums approach finders and purchase these objects.

One of the most positive impacts of the scheme is its database, an impressive accumulation of information, with over 300,000 objects recorded.

The scheme has led to a dramatic increase in the number of objects being reported, and a dramatic increase in objects which finders have always been legally-required to disclaim.

This begs the question: should the approach of England and Wales to Antiquities be adapted to other nations? I think the national network of FLO’s has been tremendously successful, and setting aside the issues of cost and implementation, would ideally be implemented everywhere. In England and Wales, nearly 90% of finds take place on cultivated land, where industrial farming practices and chemicals can potentially damage objects near the surface.

The question of whether the limited state ownership of undiscovered antiquities, the compensation to finders of the full price of their finds, and the legalization of indiscriminate digging can be adapted to other nations remains in some doubt. It should be noted that the legal prohibitions on antiquities digging in England and Wales are far more lenient than in nearly every other nation. The policy sacrifices archaeological context without question.

If we compare Scotland, which has an ownership interest in all undiscovered antiquities with England and Wales the data would seem to lend support to the notion that declaring an ownership interest of only limited classes of objects, and only prohibiting digging in limited areas has produced better results. Between 1998 and 2004, Scotland reported an average of just over 300 finds. During the same period, an average of just over 300 objects which qualify as treasure were recorded, but there was an average of nearly 40,000 finds reported by the portable antiquities scheme per year.

The scheme resulted in a dramatic increase in the reporting of treasure. A small portion of this increase may be explained by the widening of scope of the treasure act. However, I think we can draw two conclusions from the scheme:

First, if individuals are compensated for finding antiquities they will look for them, and find them, in some cases this damages the archaeological context of course.

Second, as the specter of increased criminal investigation of the antiquities trade and seems increasingly likely, with massive investigations coming to light in recent days in both Italy and here in California I think certainly the trade itself will have to find ways to justify its continued existence. Should the antiquities trade continue to exist in some form, the approach in England and Wales would seem to offer an interesting, and inarguably a successful model.

It should be noted that legally sanctioning digging, or funding digging would be politically unpopular in many nations with a strong cultural identity, such as Italy. I think cultural policy makers should approach any strategy which might incentivize digging with great caution.

There’s a couple of interesting items on the Portable Antiquities Scheme blog, and I’d like to boost the signal a bit and post them here. First is a video of Peter Twinn, a metal detectorist and archaeology student at Bristol Universtiy, who was interviewed in a brief piece on the BBC.

In addition, this afternoon at 4.30 GMT, there will be a half-hour debate in Westminster Hall on “The Future of the Portable Antiquities Scheme”, and you can watch it live here on Parliament TV. I’ll be watching, and I’ll comment here later on today.

UPDATE:

Essentially the debate was a bit of a letdown. It’s available here. It extolled the virtues of the scheme, but amounted to an argument about whether freezing the funding amounted to a de facto decrease in funding its operations.

I was struck again at how universally popular the scheme appears to be (though funding does not appear to share a correlation with popularity). There were no criticisms that it was perhaps incentivizing the looting of sites, but rather that it was as the Culture Minister Margaret Hodge claimed open to everyone from a secondary school student to doctoral dissertations. That seems the be the tremendous benefit of the scheme. I wonder if such a debate were held in Italy, or Iraq, or another source nation if there would be a similar kind of support for the program, or if its popularity may be a peculiar combination of cultural pride coupled with how and where objects are found in the countryside in most of England and Wales. I’ll confess I haven’t made my mind up on that question.

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

Scotland’s Cultural Policy

I have recently come across some very interesting excerpts from Scottish Parliamentary Questions and Answers. Now, these are seldom mistaken for serious policy debate, but these reveal some shortcomings in current policy. There exists a serious gap from what Alex Salmond and the Scottish National Party are saying about repatriation, and what they are actually doing.

First, with respect to “tainted cultural objects”, the Scottish Labour Party’s Shadow Minister for Culture asks what Scotland is doing to ensure stolen or looted objects aren’t bought and sold in Scotland. The answer, it seems, is not much.

Q S3W-8645 Malcolm Chisholm: To ask the Scottish Executive what
legislative changes it believes are required to ensure that dealing in
tainted cultural objects does not occur in Scotland. (SP 21/01/08)

A Answered by Linda Fabiani (08/02/08): While we are not aware that
Scotland has a problem with this type of illicit activity at present, the
government remains sympathetic to such legislation and we are looking at
the options available to us, including examining legislation that already
exists such as the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. This
will assist ministers in determining how best to proceed.

It seems Scotland are still waiting to act, but it would be regrettable indeed if they made the same mistakes that were made by their neighbors down south. The Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, in force in England and Wales, is not a criminal offence which will likely have any kind of measurable impact on the illicit trade, as I’ve argued here. The evidentiary hurdles are simply too great given the current state of the art and antiquities trade. One hopes that MSP’s don’t wait until another high-profile theft or sale takes place before they act. One would have thought the arrests following the recovery of da Vinci’s Madonna of the Yarnwinder would have at least eliminated the argument that this is not a problem, and nothing needs to be done.

More interesting perhaps, is the question regarding the repatriation of cultural objects held by Scottish museums. One would think that given the repeated claims Alex Salmond has made for the “return” of objects such as the Lewis Chessmen, his Government would have formulated a cohesive cultural policy. Not so it seems:

Q S3W-8842 Malcolm Chisholm: To ask the Scottish Executive what its
policy is on returning cultural artefacts held in Scottish museums to their
nation of origin. (SP 25/01/08)

A Answered by Linda Fabiani (07/02/08): Decisions on the repatriation of
cultural objects held by Scottish museums are for the Board of Trustees of
each museum to take. The Trustees of National Museums Scotland recently
agreed to requests to return a Tasmanian skull to Australia and other human
remains to New Zealand. Under the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985,
Scottish ministers approved the Australian Government and The National
Museum of New Zealand as bodies to which National Museums Scotland could
transfer objects from their collection.

Alex Salmond has been arguing for a return of the Lewis Chessmen for over a decade now. Is that the best cultural policy his government can come up with? They will simple leave it to individual Boards of Trustees.

I’ll ask again, what is the cultural or historical imperative which dictates the chessmen should be taken from the British Museum, and returned? And if so, does this mean other treasures such as the St. Ninian’s Isle treasure should be returned to Shetland? On the one hand Salmond argues against this perceived injustice which led to the current location of the Lewis Chessmen (even though they are Norwegian), but he makes no corresponding changes in Scotland for objects in its collections, which may have been taken under far more questionable circumstances.

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

Tokyo Loves da Vinci

Nearly a year ago, I wrote about the protests surrounding the loan of Leonardo da Vinci’s the Annunciation to the Tokyo National Museum for three months. The loan generated massive protests in Italy. Italian Senator Peolo Amato even chained himself to the entrance to the Uffizi gallery in Florence.

The loan went forward, and in this week’s annual gallery attendance rundown in the Art Newspaper, the work attracted over 10,000 visitors per day, the highest daily average for any exhibition since the Art Newspaper began compiling such statistics in 1997. The full table is here.

The attendance is impressive, and it’s worth noting that though there may be small risks associated with transporting a work like this, perhaps the trade-off is worth it to earn revenue, but more importantly perhaps, to allow Japanese to experience an important Italian work of art.

There are indications though that the work is not entirely a work of da Vinci, but he may have finished a work by Domenico Ghirlandaio, a fellow apprentice in the same workshop as Leonardo. As such, in 1869, soon after the work came to the Uffizi from a monastery in Monteoliveto, it was recognized as perhaps an early work by da Vinci, who probably inserted the angel on the left of the work. A detail of the angel is pictured above.

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

Yale and Peru, An Uneasy Relationship? (UPDATE)

There has been an increase in attention paid to the tentative agreement, not yet concluded, between Yale University and Peru over artifacts from Machu Picchu. The former first lady of Peru, Eliane Karp-Toledo had an Op-ed in the New York Times on Saturday which was a scathing criticism of Yale University.

Yale University Staff reporter Paul Needham has also done some excellent reporting on this controversy, a recent article from Feb. is here, and an earlier one in Jan. is here.

I commented on the tentative Memorandum of Understanding back in September, and on the claims for repatriation back in June.

As I understand it, the initial agreement seemed to be an outstanding agreement for all concerned. Peru would receive title to the objects, many of the research pieces would remain in Connecticut under a 99-year lease, there would be an international traveling exhibitions, and finally Yale would help build a museum and research center in Cuzco. Such an institution would seem to be badly needed, as there are indications the current museum near the Aguas Calientes train station is not fit for purpose:

The doors were open to the air, which was moist from the nearby river, and the sole official was a caretaker who sold tickets and then exited the building. On display in the attractive (if unguarded) museum are the finds that Peruvian archaeologists have made at Machu Picchu in the years since Bingham’s excavations.

Despite what would seem to be a very good agreement for both sides, Karp-Toledo is very critical of Yale University, and indeed Hiram Bingham III who discovered the objects. She argues the objects were only to be taken from Peru for 12 months, and that legal title to all the objects must be returned to Peru. She claims “Yale continues to deny Peru the right to its cultural patrimony, something Peru has demanded since 1920.”

Yale University wants to keep many of the pieces which aren’t fit for museum display and study them, under a new 99-year lease. That doesn’t seem to me to be unreasonable, given Peru’s slight legal claims to the objects. It would seem that any legal claim Peru could bring for these objects has long since passed the statute of limitations. Peru has no tenable legal claim to the objects, however they do have a very powerful, even emotional ethical claim for the return of these objects. However, it seems to me that the ethical claims for return which have characterized the recent restitutions to Italy and Greece are absent in this case.

Unless I am missing something, Yale has absolutely no legal obligation to return the objects. I find it a bit puzzling that some in Peru are so critical of the potential agreement. The answer may be directly tied to notions of colonialism, past injustices, and even the current indigenous political movements there. However, the goal should be to advance the study of Peruvian heritage, to continue to publicize the site itself and encourage responsible tourism there. A frank discussion of the tangible benefits that both Yale and Peru will potentially receive is needed, however in these discussions it is often difficult to move beyond notions of identity and heritage, which often trump the more practical realities of what may be at stake.

(hat tip: Donn Zaretsky)
(photo credit)

UPDATE:

It seems others have shared my initial reaction to Karp-Toledo’s piece. Lee Rosenbaum wonders how some of the more extreme comments made it into the piece.

Paul Needham continues his fine work on this story in the Yale Daily News and gives reaction from individuals at yale. Richard Burger, an archaeology professor at Yale called the Op-Ed “sour grapes”. It seems Helaine Klasky, Yale University spokeswoman is preparing a response. That should be interesting.

One wonders perhaps how pure Karp-Toledo’s motives may be. There is no question sites in Peru have been looted, but I don’t think Macchu Picchu is one. Is she using Hiram Bingham III as a political symbol, which generates public interest? I see a corollary to what Alex Salmond has done in making ill-conceived calls for return of objects from the British Museum. I do not see what grounds Peruvians may have to question this accord, which seems to be an extremely generous offer from Yale. Perhaps they should learn from a fellow nation of origin, Italy, which seems to have embraced the idea that it needs these cultural institutions in Europe and North America. Peruvians may regret that it was an American archaeologist who took objects from Macchu Picchu, but as Burger said “Yale would do well in a trial.”

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

Careers in Cultural Policy

I often get asked about career opportunities in this field, mainly from postgraduate law students who have finished their LLM’s, or from art history or museum studies folks who are very keen on the subject, but unsure of where to go with a career.

I always have a tough time answering that question, as I’ve not yet figured out an answer to that question for my own purposes. My oral exam has been tentatively scheduled for the very near future, and I’m planning on entering a career in law teaching or practicing in an art law or restitution specialty. However those kinds of jobs are rare.

I’m just wondering, do folks know of resources for those interested in restitution or other relevant research or work? I know UNESCO has a small group of people, and there are some very good, committed people writing on this subject at Universities all over the world; but asking challenging questions about provenance, or the ethics of collecting, or museum curatorship would not seem to be the kind of thing that people are exactly eager to hire for. Perhaps I’m wrong in that assumption, but it certainly seems a buyer’s market for the few positions that are out there. So, I’d be very interested to hear from people about any resources that might be available, or if folks are interested in hiring cultural heritage lawyers, archaeologists, art historians, or others who are keen on cultural heritage.

This goes beyond just idle interest, because if there aren’t options for people to pursue careers asking challenging questions, then I think cultural policy will continue to suffer as a result. In any event, I’d like to have an answer, as I usually get an email at least once a week asking what opportunities are available.

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