Author: Derek Fincham

Student note on restituting Nazi-Looted art

Katherine N. Skinner has a student note titled “Restituting Nazi-Looted Art: Domestic, Legislative, and Binding Intervention to Balance the Interests of Victims and Museums“, 15 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. 673. From the abstract:

The Nazis engaged in widespread art looting from Holocaust victims, either taking the artwork outright or using legal formalities to effect a transfer of title under duress. Years later, US museums acquired some of these pieces on a good-faith basis. Now, however, they face lawsuits by the heirs of Holocaust victims, who seek to have the museums return the artwork. Though good title cannot pass to the owner of stolen property under US law, unfavorable statutes of limitations, high financial hurdles, or discovery problems, among other obstacles, bar many of these claimants from seeking recovery. Though some museums have amicably settled with claimants, museums’ otherwise resistant responses are not surprising, considering the “cultural internationalist” attitude they adopt toward restitution in general. US federal action to resolve the issue of Nazi-art restitution has been aspirational rather than practical, and courts are not ideally suited to handle the difficult policy implications present on a one-off basis. Additionally, museums have not been faithful to their self-imposed ethical guidelines, which promote full out-of-court cooperation with claimants seeking restitution for Nazi-looted art. Therefore, this Note proposes that Congress step in to create a binding, uniform, domestic body to hear and resolve Nazi-art restitution claims brought against museums. Such a forum would eliminate many of the initial obstacles claimants face, and with its narrowly tailored application it would prevent museums from becoming more vulnerable to restitution claims in other contexts. Finally, with a sunset provision followed by a presumption against restitution, such legislation would provide museums a respite from facing these claims eternally.

If you are writing in the field and would like me to post your abstract, just drop me a comment below, or email me at derek.fincham ‘at’ gmail.com.

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

Looting at Ebla in Syria

On Saturday CJ Chivers reported on looting in Syria, in particular at the ancient site of Ebla:

For decades Ebla has been celebrated for the insights it offers into early Syrian civilization. The scenes here today offer something else: a prime example of a peculiar phenomenon of Syria’s civil war — scores, if not hundreds, of archaeological sites, often built and inhabited millenniums ago because of their military value, now at risk as they are put to military use once more. Seen from afar, Ebla is a mound rising above the Idlib plain. It was first settled more than 5,000 years ago. It eventually became a fortified walled city whose residents worshiped multiple gods, and traded olive oil and beer across Mesopotamia. The city was destroyed around 2200 B.C., flourished anew several centuries later and then was destroyed again. The latest disruption came after war began in 2011. Once rebels pushed the army back and into nearby garrisons, the outcropping upon which Ebla rests presented a modern martial utility: it was ideal for spotting passing government military planes.

The piece also has a very good video report, showing the site: http://nyti.ms/XkR4EY

  1. C. J. Chivers, Syrian War Devastates Ancient Sites, The New York Times, April 6, 2013.
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Can the Hopi Thwart the Sale of Sacred Objects in Paris Next Week?

A Hopi helmet representing the Crow Mother (more slides via NYT)

Next week the Néret-Minet auction house in Paris will auction a number of Hopi objects, many of which are more than 100 years old, and many of which are considered sacred. Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma, director of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office in Kykotsmovi, Arizona says of the objects: “Sacred items like this should not have a commercial value. . . . The bottom line is we believe they were taken illegally.”

The auction house claims that the objects were purchased as early as the 1930’s, and that all the objects were sold as long ago as the 1960’s.

Tom Mashberg reports for the New York Times that:

Historians say many Hopi artifacts were taken long ago by people who found them unattended in shrines and on altars along the mesas of the Southwest. Others were confiscated by missionaries who came to convert the tribe in the late 19th century. Some were sold by tribe members. But even those sales were not legitimate, Hopi leaders say, because they may have been made under duress, and because the tribe holds that an individual cannot hold title to its religious artifacts — they are owned communally.

This of course is why many of these objects were acquired in the last century. The Hopi have a fundamentally different view of property and sacred objects. They have a communal relationship to these objects. When that view of objects is linked with western legal systems, the results can be messy. But I think there are a number of legal challenges that can be made to the auction of these objects.

Possible action could include an action for the recovery of stolen property. The Hopi would have to establish that they have a relationship to these objects that is sufficient to allow a French court to deny the sale. Or the United States government could intervene and protest the sale on the grounds some of the objects were removed from Federal or tribal lands and are considered stolen under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. But the difficulty with both of those legal options is the problem of proof.

The best chance for a quick resolution to the sale may be to generate enough headaches for the auction house, the consignor, and any potential buyers. The New York Times piece will help raise the profile for the auction, but it will also require some vocal and I’m sorry to say expensive, actions on the part of the Hopi or their advocates.

In a case like this, it is true that seldom have we seen works of art from the United States exported and sold in a way which upsets the creator culture. If the market for Native American art continues to be this robust, it may take more concerted action on the part of the Federal government to intervene. I don’t think this is an issue of uneven application of international cultural heritage law, much of which is soft. The reporting and some reaction seems to suggest the U.S. does a better job of helping foreign nations in their efforts to repatriate. I don’t get the sense that that is right. Rather I’m not sure we have a good robust set of tools to seek repatriation from abroad when it is warranted. And there are a number of reasons for that. For one, I don’t think Native American tribes have been confronted with this problem very often either because it didn’t happen or they weren’t aware. But also we don’t have a good organized cultural apparatus in the United States. We rely on lots of very capable Museums and other organizations. But in the case of international repatriation. It really helps to have an active and organized set of voices acting in concert. We just don’t have that in the United States. So there are challenges for the Hopi here, but other similar groups have shown that patient and persistent appeal to reason can impact the disposition of these objects.

Mashberg, Tom. “Hopi Tribe Wants to Stop Paris Auction of Artifacts.” The New York Times, April 3, 2013, sec. Arts / Art & Design.

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

Theft at the Villa Giulia

A view of the Villa Giulia, Italy’s Etruscan Museum

Over the Easter holiday weekend, thieves have broken into the Villa Giulia Museum in Rome, home to thousands of Etruscan artifacts, including the Euphronios/Sarpedon Krater. La Reppubblica reports today that the thieves broke into the museum on Saturday night through the back, locked the guards on duty in the gatehouse, and stole some jewelry from the 19th century Castellani collection. They appear to have avoided entirely the antiquities from Cerveteri, and elsewhere, many of which had been repatriated back to Italy in recent years. Holiday weekends are notorious for being risky times for museums.

Some of the recently repatriated antiquities that
have hopefully been left unscathed after the theft

The thieves reportedly used smoke bombs to distract the guards and to obscure the view of the security cameras. But they appear to have taken little. Most of the antiquities were unscathed, at least according to initial reports.

The Villa Giulia was founded in 1889 to house pre-Roman antiquities from the Etruscan civilization. The building had been a Renaissance villa built by Pope Julius III beginning in 1550. It has a lovely garden designed by Giorgio Vasari, and a very early 19th century recreation of an ancient Greek temple.

There does not appear to be any reporting of the theft in English, here is the text of a Repubblica account in Italian:

Sono entrati dal retro e, dopo aver rinchiuso i custodi di turno nella guardiola, sono saliti nella Sala degli ori dove hanno fracassato tre vetrine e rubato alcuni gioielli ottocenteschi della collezione Castellani, usando dei fumogeni per non rendere visibili le immagini riprese dalle telecamere. Quello avvenuto la scorsa notte al Museo nazionale etrusco di Villa Giulia, a Roma, è un “furto singolare”, di cui “non si capisce la finalità” perché gli oggetti rubati non sono quelli di maggior valore nel museo, spiega la direttrice regionale per i Beni culturali e paesaggistici del Lazio, Federica Galloni. “I ladri – racconta la dirigente del Ministero dei Beni culturali – sono entrati dal retro del museo ieri sera, verso le 23.30. Hanno rinchiuso i custodi nella guardiola e sono saliti al secondo livello, nella sala degli Ori, dove hanno frantumato con un’ascia tre vetrine blindate molto spesse all’interno delle quali erano esposti dei gioielli della collezione Castellani. Ne hanno presi solo alcuni, forse perché disturbati dall’arrivo dei carabinieri, chiamati immediatamente dai custodi. Non capisco – ragiona Galloni -, è veramente un furto strano, singolare, perché nel museo ci sono dei reperti archeologici di gran lunga più importanti, che hanno maggior valore se immessi sul mercato”. Sul posto si trovano sia la scientifica che il Nucleo Tutela Patrimonio Culturale dei carabinieri. “Verranno esaminati i filmati delle telecamere a circuito chiuso”, aggiunge Galloni, anche se “i ladri hanno utilizzato dei fumogeni durante il furto”. 


“Roma, Rapina Con Fumogeni  Rubati Gioielli Dell’800 a Villa Giulia – Roma – Repubblica.it.” Roma – La Repubblica. Mar. 31, 2013.

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

A Hollow Victory for Mexico in the Barbier-Mueller Sale

Lot 137, which did sell,
for 2,001,500 Euro

On Friday and Saturday in Paris Sotheby’s auctioned a number of allegedly Pre-Columbian objects from the Barbier-Mueller collection.

Nord Wennerstrom reports that many of the lots sold for less than the low estimate, and 79 of 151 lots failed to sell. His take: the auction ended as “inauspiciously as it began”. Sotheby’s lists its sale results here.

The auction generated considerable interest last week. In anticipation of the sale Mexican officials protested and noted: “Of the 130 objects advertised as being from Mexico, 51 are archaeological artifacts that are (Mexican) national property, and the rest are handicrafts”. In this case “handicrafts” is a very polite way of pointing out that some of the objects are fakes or forgeries. In this case the sale continued, but the considerable notoriety surrounding the sale certainly diminished the market value of these objects, and in many cases made these objects too toxic perhaps for some buyers.

French diplomats last week did not intervene in the sale noting that none of the objects had appeared on the Interpol database, or the “red list” published by the International Council of Museums.

Sotheby’s Paris on its website stated the collect was started in 1920 by Jose Mueller. His son-in-law Jean Paul Barbier-Mueller broadened the collection. Sotheby’s described Barbier-Mueller as “a great aesthete and man of culture”.

Here’s an extended quote from the overview given by Sotheby’s:

In 1908 and 1909 Josef Mueller acquired major works by Hodler and Cézanne in Paris. While initially focusing on Western masterpieces of universal appeal, he soon became attracted by important works of Pre-Columbian art, his first purchase being an Aztec ‘water goddess’ in Paris in 1920. His son-in-law Jean Paul Barbier-Mueller, a great aesthete and man of culture, brought this high standard of collecting to other fields, such as African Art, Oceanic Art and Cycladic Art. His dedicated focus has resulted in the well-deserved reputation for excellence that the collections have today. Mr. Barbier-Mueller and his wife Monique Barbier-Mueller (Josef Mueller’s daughter), who has pursued modern and contemporary art, have achieved one of the foremost collections of art in private hands, one defined by their sophisticated knowledge and refined eye.

Some of this collection had been in existence since the early part of the 20th century. But not all of it. In a case like this, Mexico and other nations of origin have a limited range of options here. Their best way to attack the sale of these objects is exactly what it did. Make a public protest over the sale, and enlist the power of the press to reduce the market value of these under-provenanced objects. We are unsure now what will happen to the objects which did not sell. Contrast this situation with what might have happened had this auction occurred in the United States.

Increasingly unprovenanced objects are being regulated by Federal prosecutors, at least in New York and St. Louis. We certainly don’t know if a forfeiture would have happened in this case, or indeed if that was even a consideration in the decision to sell these objects in Paris rather than New York. But it is yet another example of the complex web of legal rules and norms which apply to the antiquities trade.

  1. Mark Stevenson, Mexico demands Sotheby’s halt auction of artifacts, The Washington Post, March 23, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/mexico-demands-sothebys-halt-auction-of-artifacts/2013/03/21/e5d18316-9274-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html (last visited Mar 25, 2013).
  2. Mike Boehm, Mexico trying to stop antiquities sale at Sotheby’s in Paris, Los Angeles Times, March 22, 2013, http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-mexico-wants-to-stop-sothebys-precolumbian-art-auction-20130321,0,5085665.story?track=rss (last visited Mar 25, 2013).
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

My Piece on the Cultural Heritage Movement and Environmental Justice

A typical row house in Houston’s 4th Ward, from 1984. Via FPH.

I’ve just received the final proof of an article I’ve written where I try to trace the connections between material culture and the environment: Justice and the Cultural Heritage Movement: Using Environmental Justice to Appraise Art and Antiquities Disputes, 20 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 43 (2012).

In the piece I look to some of the writing being done on environmental justice and I think about what lessons we can take as cultural heritage advocates. I examine disputes ranging from looting of antiquities sites to the lack of preservation of certain areas here in Houston like Freedmen’s town.

Here’s a short video segment interviewing an advocate for Houston’s Fourth Ward:

It’s a theoretical piece. One which I’ll freely admit is partly aspirational. But one that I’m proud of. As always I’d welcome any feedback. Here’s the abstract:

What does justice require? This paper aims to spark a conversation about the role of justice in art and antiquities disputes by introducing the concept of cultural justice. Borrowing from a principle known as environmental justice, cultural justice allows the application of critical scrutiny to the law and norms that govern cultural heritage. The history of environmental justice—including both its successes and failures—offers important lessons for the cultural heritage movement. Environmental and cultural injustice plagues the same nations and groups: Africa, Central and South America, and indigenous groups are denied the same environmental and cultural benefits. The cultural heritage movement has been subject to the same criticisms as the environmental justice movement, but has not had the benefit of an animating theoretical framework. The law strains to resolve art and antiquities disputes. Examining disputes through the lens of cultural justice allows us to move beyond thinking about art in terms of keeping it in museums (or the art trade) or returning it to its nation of origin. This paper applies Rawls’s theory of justice to cultural heritage and presents a taxonomy of cultural justice, examining in detail its distributive, procedural, corrective, and social aspects. Thinking about cultural justice allows a deeper understanding of the reasons why cultural heritage disputes are so difficult to resolve. By considering cultural justice, we can also begin to define the limits of what law and policy can do to remedy historical and contemporary art taking. These limits have eluded cultural heritage advocates, subjecting the cultural heritage movement to broad criticisms.

As always, I am very happy to post any link or abstract to anyone’s writing in the cultural heritage field, whether it’s a work in progress or has been published. Just drop me a comment below, or email me at derek.fincham ‘at’ gmail.com.

Justice and the Cultural Heritage Movement: Using Environmental Justice to Appraise Art and Antiquities Disputes, 20 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 43 (2012).

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

Trafficking Culture are Guest-Editing the EJCPR

The folks at Trafficking Culture are guest-Editing an upcoming edition of the EJCPR. Here are the details:

The European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research is a peer-reviewed international criminology journal with a special interest in transnational organized crime. It is run by Editor-in-Chief Ernesto U. Savona (Professor of Criminology, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore- Milan Director of TRANSCRIME (Joint Research Centre on Transnational Crime) and Managing Editor Dr. Stefano Caneppele (stefano.caneppele@unicatt.it).
Each year thematic special issues of the EJCPR are published. These special issues are devoted to innovative topics in the field of criminology and criminal justice, and in 2014 theTrafficking Culture team at the University of Glasgow will be guest editing one with a focus on ‘trafficking cultural objects’. For criminologists, this is something of a niche area of study, and more attention has tended to be paid to other types of transnational criminal trade. The Trafficking Culture research programme has been established to advance the evidence base in this area, as well as to undertake theoretical work and comparative study of the trafficking of cultural objects as contrasted with other types of transnational illicit commodity trade. The guest editors’ aim for this special issue is to gather together a collection of papers which inform this topic. The field of ‘illicit antiquities’ studies has been built around contributions which cross disciplines. Lawyers, archaeologists, art world professionals, anthropologists and criminologists have all played a part in explicating the issues and debating the solutions. We therefore welcome contributions to this special issue from writers in any discipline, although papers should consider the parameters of EJCPR as a criminal policy and research publication.
Original evidence-based research and/or analytical manuscripts are invited on any aspect of crime in relation to the problem of trafficking in cultural objects, and the topic is widely framed for the purposes of this publication to include all aspects of the trade in illicit antiquities, including socio- economic, cultural and criminological contexts, and beyond these core topics, comparable crime policy problems which may offer transferable solutions to these fields of illicit entrepreneurial activity.We would also be pleased to hear from those with expertise in this field who would be prepared to act as peer reviewers for the special issue.
The deadline for first draft submissions is Friday 28 June 2013.
Decisions about the outcome of the submission accompanied with detailed reviews will be sent out to authors by Friday 4 October 2013.
Should the submissions require revisions these should be completed and submitted by Friday 31 January 2014.
It would be helpful if the manuscripts do not exceed 7,000 words including Figures, Tables and References. For information on other aspects of the EJCPR manuscript format please see the Instructions for Authors on the journal’s website above.
Manuscripts should be submitted through an electronic system. In order to complete the review process, authors are asked to submit their articles online at http://www.editorialmanager.com/crim, following the Instructions for Authors.
Please circulate this call to anyone who might be interested. For formal or informal inquiries about any aspect of the process please contact the guest editor Prof Simon Mackenzie.
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

The FBI Says it Has Identified Gardner Thieves

Have you seen these works? If so you might be entitled to a $5 million reward…

But the headline makes it seem a recovery is closer at hand than it may be. Every day after St. Patrick’s Day, I’ve come to expect pieces discussing the theft of $500 million worth of art from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum.

But today’s stories are a little different. The FBI has used today’s anniversary to “widen the aperature of awareness” of the crime through a press release, webpage, and billboards. They say they know that the art was transported to Connecticut and Philadelphia after the theft. And the FBI even says it knew who the thieves are, though they aren’t releasing that information. What they hope to accomplish is a recovery, and to do that they need a member of the public to come forward with some information. It’s a worthy goal, hopefully the attention will finally secure the return.

Here’s the FBI’s  press release, and here is the special webpage the FBI has created to announce its $5 million reward.

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