Category: Antiquities

Axes!

Bus driver Tom Peirce has discovered 500 Bronze Age metallic objects with his metal detector in Dorset. The Daily Mail has the story with photos.

The discovery includes 268 complete axe-heads, one of the biggest hoards ever found in Britain. The find, as it constitutes a “prehistoric” metallic object qualifies as “Treasure” and is the property of the Crown.

Archaeologists believe the hoard was buried in the field as some form of ritual offering to the gods.

Grandfather Mr Peirce, from Ringwood, Hants, said: “When we took them out of the ground, some of them were so pristine you would think you had just bought them at B&Q yet they were 3,000 years old.”

There were so many of the artefacts that the pair couldn’t collect them all so returned the following day with fellow detectorist Brian Thomas,75, to gather the rest.

Mr Peirce, who has been a metal detectorist for five years, added: “We went back and dug in another hotspot and found a load more.

“We were very lucky because there was not much else in the field.

“If we had tried another place or walked in a different direction, we’d never have found them.”

Mr O’Connell, 62, who has owned the farm for four years, said: “Within about half an hour of Tom searching, he came rushing over to me looking shocked.

“During the war, a plane had crashed in the same field and for a minute I thought he had found a bomb.

“We went back up there on my tractor and saw the axe heads. I didn’t have a clue what they were – I thought it was scrap metal at first.

“I have owned the farm for four years and had no idea they were up there. It is very exciting.”

The find will now be valued, and the finder and the landowner will split the market value, which is estimated to be £80,000.

It’s this reward scheme under the Treasure Act which encourages the reporting of these finds. The difference between this policy and the typical approach in source nations is it encourages finders to come forward with finds; however it also encourages more metal detecting, which can be seen as a trade-off. The compensation scheme is a pragmatic balancing of interests, which places a higher value on the acquisition of the find, and bringing discoveries to light, rather than leaving objects in the ground. I think it’s an excellent policy for the UK, but it may be questioned whether such an approach would work as well in other nations without the economic resources to fund the scheme.

Those objects which don’t qualify as treasure are subject to the voluntary Portable Antiquities Scheme. Treasure basically includes precious metals (i.e. gold and silver), prehistoric base-metal like these bronze objects, and objects found with them. Since 1997, objects which don’t qualify as treasure can be recorded by the Finds Liaison Officers which have forged connections with local metal detectorists, and have compiled information which has led to a more complete understanding of important sites.

I should note, that it’s my understanding that Greece and Italy both have similar rewards schemes, but not a lot has been written about them to my knowledge. My initial conclusion is these schemes are not funded as well, and have not produced the kind of results the PAS has. I believe both nations reward finders at something like 25% of an object’s value if it is discovered by chance. If any readers have knowledge of these kinds of rewards schemes I’d appreciate a post in the comments.

(Hat tip: Will Anderson).

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

The Uneasy relationship between Scholarship and Journalism (UPDATE)


Lee Rosenbaum, arts journalist and fellow blogger at culturegrrl has an Op-Ed in today’s LA Times titled “Make art loans, not war” in which she argues for increased loans from Italy and Greece, a more collaborative relationship between North American “Universal” museums, and an increase in what she calls “citizen archaeology” along the lines of the portable antiquities scheme in England and Wales.

It’s a well written piece, but it strikes me as a compilation of a lot of other scholarship. I suppose it’s a journalists prerogative to take the work of scholars and researchers and reconfigure it in a more digestible (i.e. better written) form, but it does strike me as a bit unfair that she gets to take credit for some ideas which have been persuasively and compellingly articulated elsewhere. I’d like to point out some of the theoretical foundations for the ideas that Rosenbaum articulates.

John Merryman has long been a champion of “cultural property internationalism“, and Kwame Anthony Appiah also made a compelling argument for a similar kind of idea in his recent work, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers.

Antiquities leasing is a particularly interesting idea, and it’s one that’s received some interesting attention recently, including an article by Peter Wendel, a law Professor at Pepperdine University, as well as a recent working paper by Michael Kremer and Tom Wilkening who argue from an economic perspective that long-term leasing of antiquities would allow source nations to earn much-needed revenue from their antiquities, but would preserve their own long-term ownership interests. I’ve even argued here that the agreements forged by the Getty, the MFA Boston, the Met, Princeton, and Yale with Peru are essentially leasing agreements between the two sides. Clearly, the custom established by these agreements leads to the idea of leasing as a workable solution to these intractable disputes.

I found Rosenbaum’s argument for citizen archaeology particularly interesting:

More controversially, I believe that source countries should consider training and licensing citizen archaeologists. The antiquities police can’t hope to end all the looting or shut down the black market completely. But if those who make finds are compensated for reporting them and perhaps trained to help excavate them, midnight marauders who mangle masterpieces and destroy archaeological context may become less numerous and destructive. One precedent for the “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” approach is Britain’s financial compensation of metal detector-wielding amateurs who turn over significant finds including gold, silver and prehistoric objects to the proper authorities.

This is a subject upon which I’ve written, and what she’s referring to here is the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and the Treasure Act. Their flickr site is particularly interesting, which is where I found the image above of a Roman horseman found in Cambridgeshire last year. The PAS operates only in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland is not a part of the scheme. Unfortunately the PAS is in danger due to budget restrictions and funding for the London Olympics.

I discuss the PAS and the idea of rewarding finders of objects in some detail in my recent article WHY U.S. FEDERAL CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR DEALING IN ILLICIT CULTURAL PROPERTY ARE INEFFECTIVE, AND A PRAGMATIC ALTERNATIVE, 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 597 (2007), available on Lexis and Westlaw. I think she may be under a mis-impression regarding the scheme. The PAS encourages voluntary reporting of finds for those objects which fall outside the scope of the Treasure Act. The scheme has created a massive community archaeology project for objects which are found on private lands and do not belong to the Crown. There has always been a requirement in England and Wales to return valuable metal objects to the Crown, however the introduction of the scheme dramatically increased compliance with the law. Based on this, I argue that it’s not enough for a source nation to declare ownership; to effectively protect sites it must also erect appropriate mechanisms to promote compliance with those ownership declarations. When a metal detector finds a valuable piece of gold on private land (detecting on scheduled monuments is strictly forbidden) the finder is entitled to an award, which thus encourages the reporting of finds. However, such a system may not work in all source nations, as you do not want to encourage haphazard looting. As a result the PAS and the Treasure Act are important policy solutions to consider, but are not a cure-all for the antiquities trade.

In short, there has been a great deal of attention placed on the return of objects to Italy, but nearly all these returns, and certainly the most valuable and significant objects, were returned based on substantial evidence, often photographs, which indicate the objects in question had been illegally excavated. The Medici Conspiracy details the investigation. These returns to Italy are the product of a massive investigation of a single commercial stream (albeit a substantial one) from Italy to North America. The challenge for cultural policy makers is to think about the other source nations and other transactions. Rosenbaum rightly points out some of the innovative potential solutions to these dilemmas, I just think it’s regrettable that the Op-Ed forum doesn’t allow her to reference some of the important work she may have relied on to formulate her thoughts.

UPDATE:

Rosenbaum responds to me here, and also posts reactions from a “prominent curator” and David Gill.

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

Shelby White Returns 10 Antiquities


In a move that had long been suspected, Shelby White has agreed to return ten antiquities from her private collection to Italy. Elisabetta Povoledo has a summary in today’s New York Times. David Gill, who has long been asking about this collection has a summary and helpful links at looting matters as well. Nine of the objects, including this fresco, were given to Italian authorities earlier this week, while a 5th Century BC Greek vessel will be returned in 2010.

The reason these objects were returned is, of course, that photographs show these objects in highly suspicious circumstances. They were discovered in the massive investigation of Giacomo Medici broken and in some cases still encrusted with dirt. They were almost certainly looted. The broader question again is, have future philanthropists been discouraged from acquiring illicit antiquities? Will Shelby White acquire antiquities differently in the future? As a private individual, it’s difficult of us to expect her to adopt an acquisition policy, but to guarantee more acquisitions like this don’t take place there needs to be a continued push for market reform.

Given the impression given by news reports, I find it highly unlikely that White intended to acquire looted objects; however the market fails to effectively distinguish illicit or looted objects. A better system would take the interest and capital of a collector like Shelby White and ensure a substantial portion of those proceeds go towards future excavations and protection of sites. However the current state of the antiquities trade makes that nearly impossible.

White, and her late husband Leon Levy have long collected antiquities, and supported research and other causes. White gave $20 million to the Met to construct a new Greek and Roman Gallery which opened last year. They have also supported antiquities digs in “Israel, the Aegean, Iran, turkey, the Balkans and elsewhere” according to the NYT piece. White won’t be receiving anything in return for her agreement to relinquish these ten objects, save an agreement that Italy will not seek other objects in her collection. However, that may not be such a bad thing, as Lee Rosenbaum pointed out yesterday by showing what the Met got in return for the Euphronios Krater, where it displayed the three loaned objects, and why perhaps it didn’t make much of an announcement about them.

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

Repatriation of the Krater


Pictured here is the Euphronios krater, one of the finest known antiquities. Created in 515 BC, it is the only known complete example of a work painted by Euphronios. The krater was purchased by the Metropolitan Museum of Art for a then-record $1 million from Robert Hecht. Suspicion was aroused as soon as the work was purchased about the provenance of the piece, where it was discovered, had it been in an existing collection etc. The most likely explanation now indicates the krater was purchased from Giacomo Medici, an Italian who was convicted of selling illicit antiquities on 2004. A 2004 article on artnet by the Met director at the time, Thomas Hoving, details his account of the acquisition of the krater. The krater was almost certainly illegally excavated. As a result we know nothing of its archaeological context.

As a result these questions, Italy and the Met agreed to arrange the return of the krater in exchange for other long term loans. Sunday will be the final day to see the krater at the Met before it is returned to Italy’s “Nostoi” exhibition championing the recent repatriation efforts.

In exchange, the Met will be receiving a terracotta cup depicting gods on Mt. Olympus signed by Euxitheos, a jug shaped like a woman’s head, and another krater made in southern Italy. I’ll leave to the art historians and others the question of whether this is a fair bargain, and how much the Met’s antiquities collection has been diminished.

Does this exchange remedy the earlier illegal excavation? The answer is no, it seems to me. It does not punish the illegal excavators. We still do not know anything about the krater’s context. More than anything, this seems to indicate that the Met and other institutions will think long and hard before making another similarly dubious acquisition in the future. That I think is the real relevance, and its one I think has not been discussed amid the retirement of Philippe de Montebello and the stories about these returns. The salient question remains, are there ways to ensure antiquities are licit? The answer it seems to me is still no. Sites are still vulnerable, and the antiquities trade does not promote the careful scientific study of sites. Amid all of this controversy after returns by the Met, the MFA Boston, the Getty, and the University of Virginia, a fundamental conundrum remains. Should the antiquities trade exist in some form? The discussion should, I think, focus now on the next Euprhonios Krater. Is it being protected? Are there new acquisition policies which are sufficient? Will more institutions abroad adopt the standards of the Getty or the Indianapolis Museum of Art? Are source nations effectively regulating their sites? Are they promoting compliance with these regulations?

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

2007 in Review


One of the best things about the end of the year is the chance to catch up on things I’ve missed out on during the year. I love the year-end best music lists, all of which are helpfully compiled on largehearted boy. Movie lists are great as well, though many of the Onion’s favorite movies have yet to appear in most theaters. Dahlia Lithwick, the always-excellent legal reporter for Slate also runs down the “Bush administrations Dumbest Legal Arguments of the Year“.

It’s also been an eventful year in the cultural policy world, and in that spirit I’ve compiled the Top Ten Cultural Property events of the past year.

10. The Major theft in Brazil of Picasso’s Portrait of Suzanne Bloch and a work by Brazilian artist Candido Portinari from the greatest South American Art Museum, the Sao Paulo Museum of Art. Much of the subsequent US media coverage of the theft has misleadingly depicted the Sao Paulo Museum of Art as a poor and bumbling institution that couldn’t afford insurance. That’s highly misleading, because even the wealthiest institutions have difficulty insuring their works. It’s expensive to insure a work worth $100 million, and its often more cost-effective to spend that money on security. Of course the security was not up to the task in this case, but one wonders if a major theft of this nature from an American or European museum would be so quick to blame the museum?

9. The still-to-be revealed extent of the forgeries created by Shaun Greenhalgh, who lived in Council Housing in Bolton with his aging parents. His forgeries fooled the British Museum, the Art Institute of Chicago, and some of the world’s leading experts on Gauguin. The most surprising aspect may be the breadth of the forged objects which ranged from an ancient Greek kouros to Egyptian to ancient cuneiform to a sculpture by Gauguin. How many more Greenhalgh’s are on display now? We don’t know for sure. It calls to mind Orson Welles’ final masterpiece F for Fake: “It’s pretty but is it art? How is it valued? The value depends on opinion, opinion depends on the expert, a faker … makes fool of the experts – so who’s the expert? Who’s the faker?”

8. The recovery in August of three Picasso works stolen from the artist’s granddaughter in February.

7. Another major story is the state of antiquities–discovered, displayed, stolen– in Iraq.

6. The theft in August in Nice France, in which thieves stole 4 works by Monet, Sisley, and Bruegel. It’s probably not possible to sell these works on the open market, but at least two of these paintings had been stolen in 1999. A theft to order seems the likely explanation.

5. A significant continuing story is the increasing number of WWII-era art claims.

4. In October da Vinci’s Madonna of the Yarnwinder was recovered from a Solicitor’s office in Glasgow, four years after its theft from Drumlanrig Castle. It was a major recovery because it was a da Vinci, but also because it was recovered in a solicitor’s office. I’m looking forward to more details as the criminal trial unfolds in 2008.

3. A major story in the UK is the trouble for arts and museum funding in the face of the London Olympic bid. This funding shortage could destroy much of what makes the UK cultural policy tick, including the Waverley limited export scheme, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and arts funding generally.

2. A major milestone this year was the legal claims brought by Iran in England to seek to block the sale of antiquities. The first was Iran v. Berend [2007] EWHC 132 (QB) (an unsuccessful attempt to block the sale of a limestone relief from Persepolis). The other major dispute involved chlorite objects from the Jiroft region of Iran. The High Court ruling Iran v. Barakat Galleries Ltd. [2007] EWHC 705 held Iran was not able to establish an ownership interest, however this was overturned by the Court of Appeal in Iran v. Barakat Galleries [2007] EWCA Civ 1374. These decisions received surprisingly little media coverage, but will have long-lasting consequences for years to come as they have extended the standing of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and provided important precedent for other nations which may seek to prevent the sale of antiquities in London’s bustling antiquities markets.

1. The story I found myself writing the most about this year was the interminable dispute between Italy and the Getty, which finally culminated in an agreement this summer for the return of dozens of important works to Italy. The dispute has a number of related stories, including the ongoing dispute over the Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth, and the Marion True/Robert Hecht criminal trial in Italy. Will it fundamentally change the antiquities trade? Does it signal the end of the universal museum? Will cultural policy matter in nations other than Italy? Perhaps 2008 has the answer to those questions.

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

Iran Wins Barakat Appeal


The judgment in Republic of Iran v. Barakat Galleries [2007] EWCA Civ 1374 has been released today. At the High Court, Gray J decided in favor of the gallery because, first and foremost, the ownership declarations Iran relied on were in his eyes insufficient. The Court of Appeal reached the opposite result by holding that a claim for conversion is tenable so long as the various rights granted to Iran amount to an ownership interest under English law. Pictured here is a chlorite vase on the Barakat Gallery website, of the “intercultural style” similar to the objects now recovered by Iran.

At issue were “eighteen carved jars, bowls and cups made from chlorite. Iran alleges that they date from the period 3000 BC to 2000 BC and originate from recent excavations in the Jiroft region of Iran which were unlicensed and unlawful under the law of Iran.”

Two preliminary issues were raised:

i) Whether under the provisions of Iranian law pleaded in the Amended Particulars of Claim, the claimant can show that it has obtained title to the Objects as a matter of Iranian law and if so by what means, and

ii) If the claimant can show that it has obtained such title under Iranian law, whether this court should recognise and/or enforce that title.

The Court of Appeal answered both in favor of Iran.

In a startling rebuke to Gray J, the Court of Appeal noted that the lower court had concluded the relevant Iranian law was “both penal and public in character” and as a result it “could not be enforced in this country”. As the Court of Appeal noted

This also was a conclusion which the judge described (para 100) as “a regrettable one”, and added (presumably not having been informed that the United Kingdom had ratified the UNESCO Convention) that the answer might be the one given by Lord Denning MR in the Ortiz case, namely an international convention on the subject.

Emphasis added.

Importantly, the Court of Appeal noted that “it is important to bear in mind that it is not the label which foreign law gives to the legal relationship, but its substance, which is relevant. If the rights given by Iranian law are equivalent to ownership in English law, then English law would treat that as ownership for the purposes of the conflict of laws.” At issue was whether Iran’s rights were sufficient to give it a claim for conversion under English law. The distinction from the lower court turns not on the legal significance of a proclamation such as “Iran declares itself the owner of all undiscovered antiquities”; but rather in the individual rights which Iran has given itself in these objects. If the sum of these rights amounts to ownership under English law, then Iran has a viable legal claim. As the Court of appeal noted in para. 80:

We consider that this is an arid issue. Given our conclusion that the finder did not own the antiquities (and the fact, as was common ground, that the owner of the land from which they came had no claim to them), there are only two possibilities. Either they were “bona vacantia” to which Iran had an immediate right of possession and which would become Iran’s property once Iran obtained possession and which could not become the property of anyone else or they belonged to Iran from, at least, the moment that they were found. We consider that the former alternative is artificial. Iran’s personal rights in relation to antiquities found were so extensive and exclusive that Iran was properly to be considered the owner of the properties found.

The question then became, under English law does the Iranian interest in the objects support a claim in conversion, and if so is the claim founded on a penal or public law? The relevant 1979 Legal Bill was not penal with respect to ownership of antiquities, though other segments dealing with criminal penalties for unlawfully excavating or dealing with antiquities may have been. The court, distinguishing between export restrictions and asserting ownership. The former is clearly a public law and unenforceable ablsent another treaty obligation while the latter is justiciable. When a state owns property in the same way as a private citizen “there is no impediment to recovery.” King of Italy v de Medici (1918) 34 TLR 623.

Though the court did recognize difficulty in enforcing Iran’s sovereign authority, the Court of Appeal classified the claim as a “patrimonial claim”. In distinguishing this claim reference was made to US precedent, United States v Schultz, 333 F 3d 393 (2d Cir. 2003) in which the Second Circuit recognized an Egyptian patrimony law even though Egypt had never reduced the objects at issue to possession. Importantly, the Court of Appeal reasoned that even if it was wrong in not characterizing the claim as the enforcement of foreign public law, the claim would still not be barred because there exists no “general principle that this country will not entertain an action whose object is to enforce the public law of another State.” In supporting this principle reference was made to the UNESCO Convention, the UNIDROIT Convention, the Commonwealth Scheme (which has not apparently been fully implemented), as well as the relevant EU directives.

The appeal is a tremendous gain for source nations, and establishes English courts will in fact recognize foreign ownership declarations even when they are not explicit, so long as they grant rights to the source nation similar in nature to ownership requirements under English law. In the initial AP news story Fayez Barakat the owner of the gallery indicated “This means that the Iranian government could claim every Persian item at a British Museum, and that doesn’t make any sense”. He’s right that it doesn’t make any sense, because its patently ridiculous, and indicative of the ridiculous exaggerations which often occur after a ruling like this. The British Museum will not be emptied of its Persian collection because of this decision; rather antiquities dealers are unable to sell new and illegally excavated objects from Iran.

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

Olympics or Arts

A steady string of arts venues have suffered closure in the UK in recent weeks. The Komedia in Brighton has had to shut its doors; the Windsor Arts Centre closed its doors last friday; and earlier this month the Lemon Tree in Aberdeen suddenly shut its doors as well. I should note in the interest of full disclosure that my wife had been in charge of marketing at the Lemon Tree for nearly a year, and its sudden closure came as quite a shock. It was hardly the season’s greetings we were expecting from the Aberdeen City Council. The Lemon Tree closing was particularly disappointing for us, as it was a great venue which did a lot of community and charity work; and in many cases funding was secured which actually made these events profitable.

Sadly the trend seems likely to continue. And what is the root cause? Arts funding is always a battle, especially for real new and creative enterprises. In many cases much of the money the arts council and other organizations had previously given these organizations has been diverted to the Olympic fund. Not only that but corporate and other sponsorships are diverted to the Olympics as well. It’s not only arts funding either.

The Portable Antiquities Scheme, a pioneering community archeology project will likely have its funding cut this year. Will Anderson rightly points out that “to halt the PAS now that it is operating so successfully would be folly. All so they can build another few domes for the Olympics. It is the department of ‘Culture’ Media and SPORT and its proxy the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, that deserve to be scrapped”.

Colin Renfrew had an excellent summary of the scheme’s benefits in an opinion piece in the Guardian earlier this week. He points out that the scheme is “starting to transform our understanding of many aspects of the past”. Seventeen PhDs have used PAS data. I know it featured prominently in my thesis as an excellent and pragmatic way to effectively regulate sites in source nations. In terms of concrete discoveries, a Viking age cemetery was discovered in cumbria, a Roman bowl bearing the names of forts on Hadrian’s wall has been acquired by the British Museum and others. Perhaps most importantly, “the scheme has also taken the initiative in policing the internet for objects that should be reported under the Treasure Act and has promoted a code of practice”.

The situation isn’t any better in Scotland either, where funding for the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow will likely begin to increase as well. I don’t doubt that holding the Olympics in London will give a number of benefits to London and the UK. Perhaps if most British citizens were given a choice maybe they would choose Olympic funding over the arts and culture. However, I think those in charge should be upfront about the hidden costs and very real cuts which this Olympic bid will cause.

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

Nostoi (UPDATE)


The Nostoi (“Returns”) epic is mostly lost, but the bits and pieces which have survived indicate it tells the story of the return home of the Greek heroes after the Trojan War.

It is perhaps apt then that Italian authorities on Monday called the display “Nostoi: Returned Masterpieces” when they unveiled 68 antiquities which have recently been returned to Italy. Soon to join the list is the Euphronios Krater, which is slated for return from the Met in January.

Livia Borghese and Jason Felch have the story in the LA Times. Elisabetta Povoledo has a similar story in the NY Times, including a slide show by the AP and Italian Culture ministry. This image may be my favorite of the bunch, the Griffins attacking the doe. Objects were returned from the Getty, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, Princeton, and the Met. Also, some objects from the Royal Athena Galleries in New York were returned as well.

As might be expected, Francesco Rutelli the Italian culture minister and vice prime minister was quick to point out the significance of these returns saying, “The odyssey of these objects, which started with their brutal removal from the bowels of the earth, didn’t end on the shelf of some American museum… With nostalgia, they have returned. These beautiful pieces have reconquered their souls.”

Ultimately, the display shows the results of the Italian campaign which by necessity eschewed international law, and American law and instead went right to the heart of the matter using public pressure and the media along with the high-profile and ongoing trials of Marion True and Robert Hecht. At the press conference, Rutelli claimed that this strategy has “[brought] about radical changes in the trade of looted antiquities”. That may be true in a limited sense I suppose, but only I think when the antiquities are backed by strong political will in source nations. What about the trade in antiquities from South America or Iran and elsewhere? I’m not sure this strategy will impact those objects. I’m not sure either that this new strategy will alter the idea of the Universal Museum, which seems largely at odds with the policy of many source nations. Ideally the Italian accords will continue to allow the US and Italy to work together to continue to share objects but also to prevent the acquisition of illicit antiquities in the future.

UPDATE:

Sarah Delaney has more in yesterday’s Washington Post, with more pontificating by Rutelli including this: “if we dry up the waters of illegal art trafficking it will be much more difficult for tombaroli and others to operate.” He praised as well the “new standards of ethics that American museums have adopted”. First among these is the Getty’s stringent new acquisition policy. Also, museums who cooperate will earn continued loans.

David Gill has more on the official handlist of objects in the display, including where objects came from, and a breakdown of the type and composition of objects. As he points out, “15 pieces were represented by South Italian pottery.”

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

A Cultural Property Registry?

On Thursday Donn Zaretsky at the always-enjoyable art law blog continued his discussion of the fake Gaugin Faun statue. Specifically, he wondered what kind of international registry might have prevented this kind of fraud, and asked me how I would envision a registry. I have a few thoughts on the subject, but they’re still in an early stage.

I had originally intended to put discussions of a potential registry and some concrete reforms of the market which are needed in the thesis. It’s not in there though because I simply ran out of space, and I’ll have to save those ideas for some future work I suppose. I don’t have a definitive answer for how an international registry might be constructed. Ideally an international body such as UNESCO would step forwards and create one, however that is far too ambitious an undertaking for that organization given its current state of funding. The industry itself could choose to regulate itself more closely, but it gains more profit by not revealing information information. In the end, the art market needs a registry like MLB, the NFL and other sports leagues need a test for Human Growth Hormone. But neither is likely to arise soon.

It’s a difficult potential issue because there a number of serious obstacles to creating a registry. The Art Loss Register and other databases exist, but they aren’t the answer to the whole problem. The current market structure earns more money without a registry. Here’s how: if I have a painting and want to sell it I can take it to an auction house. Now I’m a lowly PhD student, and that’s certainly not a lucrative career choice. If someone were to purchase the painting from me directly they would have a great deal of bargaining power if they knew my relative financial position. The painting might be worth $20,000; however the purchaser may realize my financial position and negotiate the deal lower. Auctions take place anonymously and avoid this. In many if not most transactions, we are unaware who the buyer and seller are. For the fake Faun, the consignor was Mrs. Greenhalgh using her maiden name. Had the buyer known she was living in council housing, might they have been less inclined to purchase the object, or even have more cause to doubt its authenticity? I think so certainly.

A good recent article in the Florida Law Review proposes a torrens registration scheme for works of art. Bruce W. Burton, IN SEARCH OF JOHN CONSTABLE’S THE WHITE HORSE: A CASE STUDY IN TORTURED PROVENANCE AND PROPOSAL FOR A TORRENS-LIKE SYSTEM OF TITLE REGISTRATION FOR ARTWORK, 59 Fla. L. Rev. 531 (2007). The introduction lays out the main argument:

At least forty percent of valuable artwork circulating in the marketplace is either forged or misattributed. Apart from this significant problem of art authenticity, the chains of title showing current ownership of many genuine and properly attributed objects are defective. These defects are due to incompleteness of the historical records, innocent error, lapse of time, fraudulent manipulation, or theft. This Article explores the dual complexities of properly establishing a valuable art object’s correct provenance-that is to say, determining both the authenticity as well as the chain of legal ownership of the work. This Article also examines the six principal legal doctrines that human society has designed to resolve competing ownership claims and the significant moral shortcomings of each doctrine. Most significantly, this Article presents a proposal for a much-needed reform in the law of art provenance.
The proposed reform is modeled on the Torrens land-title registration system in effect in Australia, parts of the United Kingdom, and a handful of states in the United States. The reform would offer the following: (1) a legal system for conclusively registering both the ownership and authenticity of any valuable piece of artwork; (2) fundamental fairness to all parties claiming an interest in the artwork; (3) assured financial compensation to any innocent party whose claim to the artwork has been injured or lost by operation of the Torrens-like system; (4) permanent and visible public records of art ownership; and (5) enhanced market stability because of the certitude and transparency afforded to art consumers by such a title registration system.

Burton makes a good case, but it would rely on individual states to implement the system, creating a patchwork of coverage. That would be better than nothing I suppose. In the end buyers of art, and even authenticators get excited by the prospect of rediscovering “lost” art or works which have gone missing. It can happen in legitimate ways as evidenced by the trash-rescue earlier this year. However, such a system leaves open the possibility of forgers, and also creates havoc in the antiquities trade for source nations and sites. The best advantage of a registration system would not necessarily be that it prevents these kinds of fraudulent transactions today, but that it builds up a body of knowledge about an object’s provenance so as to prevent such mistakes in the future. As it stands now, we still aren’t certain how many more forgeries by Greenhalgh may have been sold.

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

Italy, Culture and Politics

Barbie Nadeau has an interesting article online at Newsweek. It makes the same kind of point that a number of commentors, me included, have noticed. Namely, that Italian politicians are often adroit at using Italian heritage for political gain.

Last month Veltroni and Rutelli unveiled another gem on the Palatine Hill: the “Lupercale,” the ancient grotto where, legend has it, a she-wolf nursed Rome’s founder, Romulus, and his twin brother, Remus. The showing of the Lupercale delighted Italians with the suggestion that the legend might be true. But while the romantics were studying the mythology, the cynics were asking questions about just why the finds were being shown off at that time. The grotto, after all, was discovered last January, during the restoration of Augustus’s palace and the iconic collapsed wall. Back then Irene Iacopi, the archeologist in charge of the Palatine Hill, said she discovered the cavern, which is covered with frescoes, niches and seashells, after inserting a 52-foot probe into the ground. So why did it take almost a year for the authorities to make a public announcement about the find?

The answer, it would seem, lies in politics and power. Just days before the showcasing of the Lupercale, Silvio Berlusconi had disclosed his plans to form a new political party that would compete with Rutelli and Veltroni. The news about the grotto, however, effectively eclipsed Berlusconi’s news, leading the former prime minister to describe the timing as “suspect.”

It’s an interesting point I think. But when culture is such an important political issue in Italy, it seems only natural for politicians to manage the news in much the same way the President might shape the news with respect to the economy, the War in Iraq, or other matters.

I do have issues with one claim made in the article though. It is claimed that “Getty Museum curator Marion True went on trial in Rome for conspiracy and receiving stolen artworks for the Los Angeles institution. The trial, which began during Berlusconi’s term and is still ongoing, has directly led to the return of more than 100 artifacts from other American museums that purchased items of questionable provenance, including 40 from the Getty.” I think that may be overstating the importance of the True trial. Certainly it has had an impact, but more important is the concrete Polaroids and other evidence detailed in the Medici Conspiracy. That evidence came as a result of investigation of a theft of objects from Italy which were later traced to Switzerland. That investigation, of which the True prosecution has emerged, is the root cause I think.

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