Category: Antiquities

Shelby White at the Met

Kate Taylor, of the New York Sun, has lengthy and extremely interesting article on Shelby White, a generous benefactor to the Met, who has also been accused by Italy of purchasing unprovenanced antiquities. The article notes that Michael Steinhardt, a friend of White’s (and who also is a proprietor of the Sun) believes White’s collection has been singled out by Italy for 2 reasons: her collection is published which allows the authorities to check the antiquities against criminal investigations, and she and her husband have been very generous.

Steinhardt is quoted as saying “She and her husband, Leon, have been generous to a fault to all sorts of institutions… Therefore she is a ripe target. Those people who are pursuing her don’t seek justice; they seek victory… Further, I would say, Shelby has stood alone, and was not as strongly defended as she should have been by those very institutions to whom she had been a too-generous donor.”

Steinhardt is not exactly an impartial actor here though. A phiale was seized from his home in 1997 because the customs declaration form was clearly misstated. Interestingly, had the customs form been accurate, and even if it was conclusively shown the phiale had been illegally exported from Italy, there would have been no legal claim for the objects return. The phiale was seized because the customs form was incorrect.

In any event, the article on White highlights the tension Museums are now facing as they change their acquisition policies, and that may require them to refuse donations from wealthy benefactors who have been collecting for many years, many times without being careful about the provenances of objects which they have acquired.

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

No More Unprovenanced Antiquities in Indianapolis

Yesterday the ArtNewspaper published an excellent article by Maxwell Anderson, the ceo and director of the Indianapolis Museum of Art titled “Why Indianapolis will no longer buy unprovenanced antiquities”. Following in the footsteps of the British Museum, he reveals that “The Indianapolis Museum of Art recently decided to impose a moratorium on acquiring antiquities that left their probable country of modern discovery after 1970, unless we can obtain documents establishing that they were exported legally.”

That is an excellent decision I think, and one which should be praised. Why did they choose 1970? That was the year the UNESCO Convention adopted the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. It is seen as a watershed moment in which the international community began to shift its thinking on the cultural property. Nothing legally requires them to pick 1970, but it is an important symbolic date, and that is what this measure essentially is. One would hope that the Museum wasn’t purchasing unprovenanced antiquities anyway, and if they did the trustees or museum director could be violating their duties.

Of course an interesting upshot will be that the decision will “prevent our curators, particularly those in the fields of Asian and classical art, from soliciting or accepting gifts from generous donors who bought works of art in good faith.” This refers to the situation which seems to be plaguing the Met as Shelby White has donated many outstanding antiquities for display, but there are concerns that many of them may have been illicit. Anderson speaks to this:

As a curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art from 1981-87, I helped to cultivate the support of two couples whose personal collections of classical antiquities became among the world’s foremost: Leon Levy and Shelby White, and Lawrence and Barbara Fleischman. In neither case did I suspect then or now any malevolent intent on the part of these couples in pursuing objects of great quality. On the contrary, I knew them to be drawn to the remarkable breadth of the classical imagination, and by obtaining works of consummate beauty, they were proud to share their commitment with others. I wrote entries in the catalogues of their respective collections, long after leaving the Metropolitan, out of a sense that the works illustrated in those publications were better off known than suppressed. I maintain that position to this day: forswearing the publication of antiquities lacking comprehensive provenance penalises the works and their makers, and does no service to any potential claimants.

It is, instead, the act of purchasing unprovenanced works that connects with a chain of events leading back to their possibly clandestine removal from a country of origin. I believe that it is essential for all of us who care for the evidence of the past to take no actions that might unwittingly contribute to such removals.

Another important factor in the decision is the IMA’s reluctance to be involved in repatriation or title disputes which have plagued other institutions in recent years. As Anderson rightly points out, this legal wrangling prevents institutions from focusing on the art and studying and appreciating it. However, I wonder if this decision might be challenged by friends of the museum or other donors when an institution refuses to accept an unprovenanced, but very valuable or important gift? The possibility seems remote, but there seem to be a growing number of suits challenging the decisions of museums and other cultural institutions as evidenced by the recent controversies in Philadelphia and Buffalo.

In the end, Anderson is arguing for a better museum and collecting culture. One in which the repurcussions in source nations of collecting and curating are taken into account.

He imagines a situation which I think would be ideal, “Our collective goal should be to persuade art-rich countries to join Great Britain, Japan, Israel, and other nations in the creation of a legitimate market in antiquities. Archaeologically rich countries could use funds realised from the open sale of documented antiquities to bolster their efforts to police archaeological sites, and to support research, conservation, and interpretation in museums, while sharing their heritage the world over.” To better accomplish this he advocates a greater use of International Loans, similar to the long-term lease idea which I discussed yesterday.

He also proposes a radical idea, which is that unprovenanced works should be donated to the Smithsonian, which would then be solely responsible for the repatriation and other controversies, thereby eliminating many of these headaches for other museums. That is an interesting idea, but do we really want the Smithsonian, the only real National cultural institution in the US to be associated with illicitly-gained objects; especially given its recent high-profile problems?

In any event the article is fascinating, and I really recommend giving it a read. The move is ultimately a symbolic one, but one that may lead to continued reform of the cultural property trade.

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

Long-Term Leasing for Antiquities

Donn Zaretsky and Tyler Cowen both linked to a fascinating article last week by two economists who argue that long-term leasing of antiquities are a better alternative to export restrictions. Michael Kremer of Harvard, and Tom Wilkening (I think from MIT), argue that long-term leases would allow source nations to earn much-needed revenue from their antiquities, but would preserve their long-term ownership interests. Here is a link to their working paper.

It is a great idea I think, and one with a great deal of promise. It is a pragmatic solution, and one that has as good a chance as any at pleasing the disparate interest groups that shape cultural policy. A couple potential drawbacks are the risk of transportation, problems insuring against theft, and upsetting those who feel antiquities belong in their source nation. It’s an exciting idea though, and one that merits further study.

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

Italy Agrees to Repatriate a Roman Statue to Libya


In yesterday’s Washington Post, Ariel David has an interesting article on Italy’s decision to repatriate this Roman statue of the goddess Venus. The statue is a copy of a Greek statue which has never been found. It was discovered in 1913 by Italian troops near the ruins of the ancient city of Cyrene on the Libyan coast. It was probably created in the 2nd Century AD. It’s currently housed at the National Roman Museum in Rome.

Libya requested the return of the statue in 1989, however a legal dispute involving a group which considered the statue part of Italy’s heritage has prevented the return for the last 4 years. Last week an Italian Court rejected a plea from the Italia Nostra conservation group, as international agreements “obliged” Italy to return the Greek statue.

Edmondo Zappacosta, counsel for the Libyan government said “This is a granite-like sentence, with solid arguments… On the basis of historical and juridical considerations, it was virtually a foregone conclusion that the Italia Nostra appeal would be rejected.” The statue can now be returned to Tripoli. A date has yet to be set for the return.

The ruling is an interesting one. Many of the news reports indicate that it allows Italy to claim that other nations should return antiquities illicitly taken from Italy. I think a better reading of the decision is that it limits the ability of individuals to challenge the return of cultural heritage. This was a decision about whether the Italia Nostra could block the return. If angry citizens groups were allowed to challenge repatriation decisions, it would be very difficult to effectively repatriate objects, especially if the objects at issue are part of a popular collective heritage, like Greek or Roman civilization.

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

Scotland Yard Halves Art and Antique Squad Funding

Grim news for the London Metropolitan Police Art and Antiques Squad. Saturday’s edition of the Guardian had the following:

The dramatic scaling down of Scotland Yard’s once renowned arts and antique squad has left organised criminals free to plunder the nation’s heritage, according to a leading fine art insurer.

Police have sought private money to finance the squad after its annual budget of some £300,000 was halved earlier this year. But the Guardian has learned that Scotland Yard has failed to secure a penny from insurers or auction houses, after months of discussions.

Britain’s art market is second only to the US and experts claim up to £200m worth of stolen art and antiques are sold in the UK each year. Interpol estimates that art theft is the fourth largest organised crime after drugs, people trafficking and arms.

Annabel Fell-Clark, chief executive of Axa Art UK, which pays out tens of millions of pounds a year to reimburse victims of art theft, condemned the slashing of the unit’s budget. She warned that scaling down the unit was already having an impact on pursuing art thieves who target Britain’s stately homes and museums.

“We have seen that they [the team] are increasingly overstretched and being treated as a very low priority. At the moment we have very good information which we are wanting to pass on, which would bring arrests, if not convictions. But we are not being treated particularly seriously, let’s put it that way.

“We want to see criminal gangs brought to justice, and in some instances lack of interest from the squad has stopped us being able to pursue further recovery. We want and need to work with the police.”

She said Axa was aware the government was seeking funding for the squad but the company had decided it would not consider paying directly for the unit, adding that attempts by the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police to find private sponsors in the art world were shortsighted.

“It would be a conflict of interest for us to get involved,” she said. “We have slightly different agendas. As insurers, we are interested in recovering the pieces however we can, and are not that bothered about finding and prosecuting the perpetrators. We are concerned that this aspect of law enforcement is not taken particularly seriously right now.

“Very often when you are investigating art theft connections are uncovered with organised crime in relation to drugs and arms dealing, so it doesn’t make sense to ignore this aspect of criminal activity.”

The London based “arts squad” was formed in 1969 to pursue and prosecute criminals who operate in the second biggest art market in the world. In the past the unit, which is called in to investigate 120 cases a year, was involved in recovery of art works across the world.

(continue reading)

This is a troubling development. 150,000 is not a very large sum, and a drop in the bucket compared to the amounts of money which changes hands in the UK art and antiquities market. If the United Kingdom is serious about combating the illicit trade in arts and antiquities, it needs to maintain a well-funded art-theft unit. To expect the arts and antiquities unit to solicit funding from those they are supposed to regulate and police also strikes me as ridiculous.



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

Can "My Things" Prevent Art Theft?

A new internet service called MyThings.com has just launched in the US, while it has been running in the UK since last December. It is a clever concept, and as I understand it, it has a number of uses:

  • It allows people to track their belongings
  • People can have some of their belongings valued
  • It can help police track down stolen items
  • It can add items to a portfolio at the point of sale via agreements with retailers
  • People can show off what they own

The website is in the initial stages, but it does seem to market itself to art and antiquities owners. People can choose to display what they own to the whole internet, or keep them private. The concept is clever, but makes me a bit uncomfortable, because it seems much of this information must surely be tracking the buying habits of consumers, and the website does not seem up front about this (at least from my cursory exploration). I wonder what kind of an impact this site or others like it will have on the cultural property trade. It’s biggest impact may be insuring people have photos of their art for insurance valuation, and it may help police track down the objects, but it is still no substitute for a licit and honorable market which is based on solid provenance.

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

Monteleone Di Spoleto Wants Its Chariot Back


This exquisite bronze chariot was discovered in 1902 by a farmer clearing some of his land. Today’s New York Times has an interesting article by Elisabetta Povoledo on the small Northern-Italian village which wants this chariot returned.

The 2,600 year-old bronze chariot was assembled in 1903, but has recently been reassembled to better show what Etruscan chariots probably looked like at the time. Carol Vogel had a nice article on the new reconstruction last week here. It’s also got an excellent slide show of the chariot. The image above shows the chariot before the reconstruction, the picture below is after.

As the Mayor of Monteleone Di Spoleto Nando Durastanti says, “I’m very sorry for the Met because they’ve done a great job in making the most of the chariot.” This is not a claim pursued by the Italian Culture Ministry, rather mayor Durastanti enlisted an Atlanta lawyer named Tito Mazzetta to pursue its claims.

Mazzetta argues that Italian law in 1902 dictated that the chariot was the property of the state, and he uses a decision by the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University which returned an Egyptian Mummy in 2004 even though it had been exported to North America in 1864. Mazzetta wants another exception carved out in the already exception-ridden statute of limitations provisions. I’m not sure what kind of exception he hopes to carve out, but I think he’s going to have a difficult time with it. The Demand and Refusal rule which is the law in the State of New York triggers a limitations period when an object that has been missing is demanded from its current possessor. That is the most generous limitations rule that I am aware of in the US. In this case, the Italian State knew about the chariot in 1904. The New York Times has an article on Feb. 16, 1904 in which Italian authorities were critical of the chariot’s export. In any case, it seems that an equitable defense such as laches would certainly step in and prevent a repatriation.

This is a difficult battle for Mayor Durastanti, given that over a century has passed with the chariot on display at the Met, and the Italian Culture Ministry does not support the repatriation. His claim is an ethical one. However those claims need public pressure to be effective. Without the support of the Italian Culture Ministry, that is a nearly impossible battle to win in my view.

As Maurizio Firorilli, a lawyer with the Italian Culture Ministry said, “the preconditions that have guided other negotiations don’t exist in this case.” I think that is right, even though Mazzetta still attempts to stake the moral high ground in the dispute by saying “When lawyers challenged the slaver laws or fought for equal rights for women, people thought they were out of their minds … Laws should be changed. The crimes of the past should not be condoned.” That may be true, but this antiquity seems a very different situation from something like slavery.

The chariot was found by chance by an Italian farmer who didn’t know what he had found. He sold the bronze chariot as scrap metal so that he could re-tile his roof. Perhaps the chariot should be returned to Italy, but the World’s museums cannot be emptied of all antiquities and works of art which originated in another nation.

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

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

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