Derek Fincham

The Getty Trust’s Francavilla Marittima Project

The J. Paul Getty Museum announced today that a second volume of research will be published from the Francavilla Marittima project. The project brings together researchers and scholars from Italy, Switzerland, and the Getty. As today’s press release states, “this partnership, designed to discover information about the origins of objects from antiquity, demonstrates the good that can come from collaborative international scientific research based solely on the pursuit of knowledge”.

This project was started in 1993 by Marion True, after a Dutch archaeologist named Marianne Kleibrink notified true that many of the vases in the Getty’s collection came from a Greek colony in southern Italy knowns as Francavilla Marittima. It seems most of these vases and terracottas were donated to the Getty in the 1970’s.

In response, True and the Getty undertook this research initiative, and also repatriated many of the objects to Italy. And so they should have, because we don’t know who donated the terracottas, but it seems possible that many of the vases and fragments were illicitly excavated or illegally exported.

This is a welcome research initiative, and is good in the sense that it is attempting to learn more about these vases. However, it’s a bit like closing the proverbial barn door after the horse has escaped. If these terracottas had been professionally excavated, a great deal more would have been known about them. Of course, because the objects were donated, the Getty didn’t really play a part in that illicit trade. Today’s move seems a clear move to improve the public image of its former curator Marion True, and highlight its research initiatives. I’m only a novice at archaeological study, and I do not know about the quality of this research. If any archaeologists have an opinion on the scholarly merit of what has been learned from the Francavilla Marittima project, please post your thoughts in the comments section.

As Michael Brand’s statement today made clear, “The goal of this project from the start was to repatriate the objects to Italy following a period of research and documentation and I’m pleased we played a part in this important international effort”. Research initiatives like this one are a welcome step, but are by no means a substitution for a professional excavation. I would like to see more of a collaborative effort between the antiquities market and archaeologists which uses the purchase price an antiquity fetches at an auction to fund excavations in source countries. There are a number of difficult barriers in erecting such a system, but it seems the best chance to forge a pragmatic compromise and reduce the illicit trade.

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

Another Iranian Loss in the High Court in London

Iran has lost a legal dispute involving 5,000 year-old antiquities. Here’s a story from the Daily Mail and also The Independent. Gray J. ruled against Iran because it could not establish Iranian title to the artifacts. It seems the antiquities were exposed after flooding in 2001. There may be an appeal, but it’s unclear why exactly Iran was unable to establish its ownership claim. Was the national patrimony declaration unclear? Or, could the antiquities have come from any number of nations? As Gray J. said, “but the enactments relied on by Iran fall short in my judgment of establishing its legal ownership of the antiquities.” Another frustrating example of poor legal reporting. That’s the result, but we have no idea why the court reached that decision. In any event, this is an important and interesting ruling. I’ll write more when I can track down a copy of the opinion. Sometimes the opinions take a couple of weeks to hit the internet.

It seems that 2 large antiquities shipments have been seized by Customs officials in the UK and returned to Iran. I was not aware of those seizures. This decision is a blow to source nations, and a bit of a surprising one. Courts in the US, even in the civil context usually enforce these declarations. I will be very interested to read the opinion in this case.

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

The "Booming" Business of Restitution Claims

Howard Spiegler and Lawrence Kaye are receiving a great deal of attention (and free advertising) these days. Kelly Crow of the Wall Street Journal had a nice article on Lawrence Kaye 2 weeks ago titled “the Bounty Hunters” which appeared in the Mar. 23 edition ($). It’s an interesting article, and a number of the points she discusses have been covered in this blog in recent months.

In particular, she paints the art restitution practice as a booming business. As she says,

In a dynamic that echoes past law-industry booms — asbestos and tobacco litigation, securities class -action suits — a confluence of factors has tipped art restitution from a boutique practice of a decade ago to a mini-industry. Museums are putting their archives online, and the number of online art databases is growing, making it easier to locate potentially looted works. As art prices reach further uncharted territory, lawyers are accepting jobs that wouldn’t have paid off in the past. Top cases yield nine-figure payouts.

I think it’s true that restitution litigation is increasing, and the sums of money which can be recovered are staggering. However, I think it would be laboring the point to make out the restitution litigation as the next big legal trend. These claims are interesting and dynamic, but they don’t yet rise to the level of the asbestos or tobacco suits I don’t think. Spiegler and Kaye are the only attorneys I’m aware of which have a devoted restitution practice (at Herrick, Feinstein), though there may be others. I do think “cultural property law” or “art law” is a fascinating field because it touches on a number of interesting and novel points of law ranging from limitations periods to intellectual property and commercial law. It’s an interesting and diverse mix of law, and one that is much different from the transactional work a lot of lawyers have to do. Art law just sounds more fun and interesting than drawing up a contract or commercial sales agreement.

Carol King of the New York Times also has a great article on these guys as well in last week’s museum section. It’s available here (as an aside, the NYT has made a terrific decision to allow everyone with an academic-affiliated email address free access to it’s Times Select service, including .edu and .ac.uk email addresses).

The NYT piece talks about some of the landmark art law cases including Turkey’s dispute with the Met, the Schultz prosecution, and the Elicofon case. If you are a nation or claimant and you want the return of a cultural object, Spiegler and Kaye are the attorneys you want to speak with.
I think it would be too easy to simply paint these guys as champions of dispossessed art. They are attorneys and their job is to zealously advocate on behalf of their clients. They aren’t charged with creating good cultural policy. Some of their efforts have been successful and worthy of praise. However, other disputes have been more controversial, most notably the Portrait of Wally dispute that is going at 8 years without a trial on the merits.

In general, the work of these lawyers is worthy of praise admiration; they are cleaning up a market which has shown itself unable or unwilling to police itself; they also have had the good fortune of operating in a lucrative and interesting niche practice area.

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

Recent Repatriations and the Parthenon Marbles

The TimesOnline had an article last week by Ben Macintyre tying in the recent repatriations and criminal trials in Italy and Greece to the Parthenon Marbles (or the Elgin Marbles as they are often referred to). Here’s an excerpt:

The return to Greece of a spectacular Macedonian gold wreath from the 4th century BC may lead to the repatriation of several looted artefacts worth millions of pounds.

Court cases in Italy and Greece are increasing the pressure on museums around the world and could lead to widespread changes in the handling of ancient treasures.

The campaign to return stolen work to its country of origin has emboldened Costas Karamanlis, the Prime Minister of Greece, to predict that Britain will soon be forced to surrender the Elgin Marbles. Also at stake are hundreds of statues, bronzes, engravings and other artworks from museums in Europe, the US and Japan.

At the heart of this revolution is the landmark case of the funerary wreath, one of the most beautiful surviving examples of ancient craftsmanship, which was looted from Greece more than ten years ago. A delicate spray of gold leaves interwoven with coloured glass paste, the wreath was probably designed as a funeral gift and made soon after the death of Alexander the Great.

It was put on display in Greece for the first time this week after a long campaign to persuade the J. Paul Getty Museum, in California, to return it to its homeland.

Mr Karamanlis welcomed its return as evidence that Britain would soon be forced to relinquish the Elgin Marbles, which were acquired by the British diplomat Lord Elgin between 1801 and 1810 and are currently housed in the British Museum. Britain has argued that they are better preserved in London (continue reading).

These repatriations are an important step, and are an example of stronger action by both Greece and Italy. However, the Vatican is expected to announce that it will refuse to return some fragments of the Parthenon. Parts of the Parthenon are spread all over Europe, including London, Rome, Copenhagen, Berlin.

I was at the British Museum a few weeks ago, and I was reminded how impressive the sculptures still are, even though they are broken and decontextualized. It would be very exciting to see all of the sculptures collected in Athens for display. However, people all over Europe can view parts of them at present, and there is a value in that as well I suppose. In the end, I seriously doubt whether the British Museum will ever relinquish the marbles.

The case for their return seems much different from the gold wreath which the Getty just returned and from the trial of Marion True. The argument for their return is only ethical or moral, there is no legal claim to them which Greece could hope to assert.

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

"Portrait of Wally" and Nazi Spoliation Litigation

Over at Culturegrrl, Lee Rosenbaum has some interesting information on Egon Schiele’s Portrait of Wally which has been sitting in storage for about 8-9 years now pending litigation. Two other articles on this topic have appeared in the last week as well. Carol Kino has an article in the NY Times on this as well. Kelly Crow had an article ($) in last week’s Wall Street Journal as well.

Here’s what Rosenbaum had to say on “Portrait of Wally”:

“Wally” is still languishing in storage, but not at MoMA. Having been seized by the U.S. Customs Service, it is now in a warehouse run by the Department of Homeland Security. According to MoMA’s deputy general counsel, Stephen Clark, “No trial date [at U.S. District Court in Manhattan] has been set.”

The Times reported that New York art-restitution attorneys Lawrence Kaye and Howard Spiegler are “helping the heirs” of the Viennese dealer in their effort to recover the Schiele painting from the Leopold Museum, Vienna, which had lent it to the MoMA show. The heirs assert that it had been confiscated from Jaray by the Nazis and should be returned to the family.

Spiegler told CultureGrrl today that an effort early last year at mediation in the case had failed, but he was hopeful that the matter would be resolved in court by “the end of this year or the beginning of next.”

Well, let’s hope that is the case. Rosenbaum blames the law for this extended delay, and that’s right in a sense. This painting was seized under a civil forfeiture statute. The relevant federal prosecutor seized the work years ago, but the judicial machinery has been incredibly slow. I write about this at length in my article for the Cardozo Journal of Art and Entertainment law which should appear sometime next fall. Jennifer Anglim Kreder had an outstanding article on this dispute, and civil forfeiture a couple of years ago in the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. I think this is a topic which warrants some more discussion, so I’ll revisit it later this week when I have more time.

In the meantime, you can see what I’ve written on the “Portrait of Wally” dispute.

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

Australian Auction Halted

Will Anderson over at The Assemblage was kind enough to point out the decision by the South Australian government to possibly halt an auction. An Australian news outlet, ABC News Online is reporting that the South Australian Government is considering halting the auction of a breastplate recently discovered by two brothers. It was estimated to bring half a million dollars (aus.) at auction. The object may have been presented to Aborigines in 1863 who helped the explorers Burke and Wills. Wikipedia has a nice overview of that expedition here. Let’s just say despite grand ambitions to cross the continent, it did not end well.

The Aboriginal Affairs Minister Jay Weatherill may attempt to acquire the brass plate under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA), which is available here. I’m not very familiar with it, but it seems the Minister may elect to purchase the object, or even seize it if a crime has been committed.

It’s a bit of a curious action here in that it is protecting a gift which the newly-arrived explorers gave to the aborigines who helped them. Most protections of this kind would seem to protect the creations of the indigenous groups, and not gifts given to them by the new European explorers. It’s a different way of thinking about an antiquity I think, and challenges what we might consider to be heritage.

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

A Few Notes

Sorry for the lack of posts last week. I’ve been rushing to finish up a couple of articles for publication. The first, is a case note on Iran v. Berend which should appear in the next issue of the International Journal of Cultural Property. The second is a much longer article which is tentatively titled: Why US Federal Criminal Penalities for Dealing in Illicit Cultural Property are Ineffective, and a Pragmatic Approach. That should be published sometime next fall. I’ll try to post a copy of it on SSRN in the next few months.

In the links section at the left, I’ve added a link to the Museum Security Network, which is an outstanding service that sends daily emails on this topic. Also, I’ve included a link to Joanna Cobley’s Museumdetective site, which includes a lot of great information and podcasts.

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

National Archives Theft for eBay Sale

An unpaid intern at the National Archives in Philadelphia was charged last week according to Tom Schmidt of the Philadelphia Daily News. He has been charged with stealing 165 Civil War documents and selling them on eBay, which violated 18 USC 641 (theft of government property).

Some of the stolen documents included a letter announcing the death of President Lincoln, along with other letters and telegrams detailing the supply of weapons and other materials to soldiers. He was a volunteer to prepare documents for the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.

The defendant, Denning McTague, holds master’s degrees in History and IT. He had a website called Denning House Antiquarian Books, but it seems to have been taken down since last week. Many of the documents have been recovered, and McTague has been cooperating with authorities.

Sadly, I think this is what a substantial measure of cultural property theft looks like. It happens when curatorial staff and others take parts of a collection which may not be noticed. Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for the National Archives in Washington D.C. was quoted in a story on PC World that “Since we never sell our documents, and since they [are] all unique, they are all extremely valuable” and this kind of theft is rare. I’m not sure how rare it really is, as institutions certainly do not want to publicize when parts of their collection are gone because of mismanagement. However in this case it seems the National Archives quickly discovered the missing documents, and no serious harm was done.

A copy of the Federal charges are available here.

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

What is the Practical Effect of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003?

“Dealers are Confident their methods won’t trigger the offence…”

Yesterday evening I had the great pleasure in attending a program by Dr. Simon Mackenzie at the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies in London. He gave some of his initial findings on a survey of important players in the antiquities market he had just completed with Professor Penny Green. Mackenzie was just starting to interpret his data quite obviously. A couple things he said really jumped out though, and should make the scholarly output from this project much sought-after.

According to Mackenzie, many of the respondents thought the act was of minimal effect. This is my view as well. There have been no completed prosecutions under the act, though apparently some charges have been brought for altering parts of registered buildings, but no convictions have been achieved. As I’ve argued before, prosecutions under the act will almost certainly be few and far between The reason for that is the difficulty of proof. The market does not operate with provenance or chain of title. Any given vase could have been in a collection for 150 years, or could have been unearthed last week. There is no way of distinguishing them once they have been restored.

I found one interview response from London’s law enforcement community quite fascinating. The respondent basically stated that the job of the police is to protect London, not to recover Iraqi or any other antiquities. Mackenzie labeled this problem national self-interest. On one level, I can completely see this police perspective. After all, if Londoners were going to allocate enforcement resources, wouldn’t most of them choose safety and security for London first? I think so. However this becomes problematic for the illicit trade in cultural property, which is truly international in character.

Another issue was the fact that these dealers are “powerful constituencies in their own governance”. Essentially, dealers have a great deal of say in how their own regulations are created. In conclusion, Mackenzie summarized the quandary by putting forward two different forms the antiquities market might take: (1) the market would end, or (2) the market would function along the lines of partage. In the latter model, experts would excavate sites, source nations would keep important objects, and then the excess antiquities would be auctioned off to finance the dig itself. In theory that seems a workable model. I’m not an archaeologist, and I have only a cursory knowledge of what they do, but that seems to be a difficult model for them to implement. One possible compromise might be for archaeologists to begin to commercialize their research, and thus allow for responsible commercial exploitation. In turn, dealers could implement some truly effective self-regulatory measures.

In the end, what I took from the discussion was a new-found respect for the Cultural Objects offence. I have been quite critical of it in the past, but I think, that only a truly draconian regulatory framework can effectively police the market as it currently operates. The best means of reform is to convince dealers that more money can be made by selling provenanced antiquities. That is a big job, and quite daunting, but achievable in my view.

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

Protest over a Da Vinci Loan

This work by Leonardo Da Vinci, the Annunciation, is slated to be displayed in Tokyo until mid June. However, a number of Italians are upset about the loan. Italian Senator Paolo Amato pictured below has chained himself to the entrance to the Uffizi gallery in Florence to protest the loan. The BBC has a story here, and an AP story is here.

Cultural policy is a much more prominent part of Italian politics than in many other countries. Amato has accused Italian Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli of being “arrogant” for deciding to agree to the loan. The work has travelled before, to Paris and Milan in the 1930’s, and it was hidden during WWII. However, it has remained in the Uffizi since 1945.

I have very little knowledge of how risky transportation of important works is. The work “was being bundled into three protective crates filled with shock-absorbers and high-tech sensors to monitor humidity, temperatures and stress levels in preparation for departure Tuesday.” That seems pretty secure to me, but I suppose any risk of loss of this important work would be a tragedy.

Thanks to David Nishimura at Cronaca for pointing out the story.

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