Category: Antiquities

Getty Panel to Study "Cult Statue of a Goddess"


The Getty Museum has today announced it will bring together a panel to study this statue, probably of Aphrodite, known as the “Cult Statue of a Goddess”. Last November, Michael Brand announced the Getty would transfer full title of the statue to Italy. He said the Getty would try to return the statue within 12 months. The Italian Ministry of Culture has demanded other objects though, including the “Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth” which I’ve discussed here many times.

The experts have expertise in archeology, pollen analysis, stone analysis, and art history. University of Virginia Professor in Art History Malcolm Bell III has signed on to the workshop. He has been critical of the negative impact the antiquities market has had on archaeological context in the past. You can read a 2005 article he wrote here at the Museum Security Network. In it he said this statue “is an extremely rare example of the sort of cult statue that once stood within a Greek temple. While, as some have asserted, this remarkable work may come from Morgantina (a site in Sicily where I serve as co-director of excavations), no proof of its origin is known, and its subject is just as uncertain. The market destroyed the evidence.”

Both the Italian Ministry of Culture and the Sicilian Regional Minister of Culture and Environmental Heritage have been invited to attend as well. The demand for this kind of statue motivated those who illicitly excavated and exported this work from its source nation. This workshop aims to study the statue, with the presumed goal of finding the findspot or provenience of this statue.

Scientific study is of course welcome, and perhaps these experts will be able to look at the soil and other residue removed from the statue when it was cleaned and learn a lot about it. However, if the market only dealt in licit antiquities, chances are we would know a great deal more about this statue. Many have criticized the Getty’s aggressive antiquities-buying in the past, as the large sums of money they were willing to pay for these objects helped to fuel the illicit market.

The workshop is set to take place in May, and the findings will be peer-reviewed and then published.

What will the impact of this workshop be? The Getty has already agreed to return the statue, and the Italian Culture Ministry has insisted more objects should be returned. I am not sure what scientific data can be gleaned from the statue and the concretions at this point. I suspect it will not be conclusive, and will perhaps point to a number of findspots.

Dr. Brand says of the panel “the questions and allegations surrounding the statue’s origins are complex and often contradictory. Our role as responsible stewards demands that we examine these questions in greater detail…We look forward to the opportunity to work with our international colleagues to shed more light on this subject.” I hope both the Getty and Italy are able to work together to reach an effective compromise on this and the other works in the Getty collection.

Italians are very proud of their ancient history and rightly so. These disputes implicate national and cultural feelings. A productive dialogue would seem to be a better solution to this problem than a lot of the rhetoric which seems to fly back and forth in the press by both sides.

If the study is able to show the statue originated in another nation, like present-day Turkey, if the Getty will decide against returning the statue to Italy. The Getty’s message to Italy seems clear, if you aren’t willing to negotiate on these objects, we will look at them ourselves and determine where they should belong. From the legal and policy perspective, it would be much more helpful if the Getty clearly outlined the process an object goes through before it is repatriated. What kind of calculus is involved in deciding to repatriate? It seems that in the Italian case, the Culture Ministry has been extremely vocal and forced the Getty’s hand in recent years.

Lee Rosenbaum over at Culturgrrl has a post on the same topic as well.


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

The "Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth"

Earlier this week I had the great pleasure to give a presentation to the University of Aberdeen Legal research Society. I discussed the very public dispute between Italy and the Getty museum regarding the “Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth”. The discussion which ensued was furthered greatly by the presence of Neil Curtis, Senior Curator of the Marischal Museum, as well as a couple of Italian colleagues. We had a very interesting discussion, and much of the credit for that goes to them. I would like to outline here my general comments on the dispute. I have posted on many of these ideas before, but if nothing else the dispute over the Bronze allows a timely and interesting introduction to cultural policy and repatriation.

As the LA Times put it last fall, “To whom does a statue made in ancient Greece, stolen by Romans and found in the Adriatic by Italian fishermen 2,000 years later, rightfully belong?”

First, what is the Getty trust, and why has it gotten itself into trouble in recent decades? J. Paul Getty was an American Industrialist, and the founder of the Getty Oil company. He started the Getty Trust in 1953. Today, the Trust may be the richest art institution in the world, boasting assets of close to $9 billion dollars. In recent decades, the Getty pursued a very aggressive antiquities-buying campaign, which by itself may be an innocent activity. However we now know that many of those antiquities were illicitly excavated or exported illegally.

Italy has a large amount of discovered and undiscovered antiquities. It is also an industrialized nation. Many of the nations which are considered source nations (i.e. those that export more cultural objects than they import) are underdeveloped. So Italy is in a unique position. Historically, Italian antiquities have been exported to the rest of Europe, and other parts of the world. Increasingly, Italy has sought to prevent the loss of these cultural objects. The last 18 months has seen the Italian Culture Ministry lead a very aggressive repatriation campaign with three components

1. Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions,

2. Raised repatriation claims with Museums and Private collectors,

3. A Public Relations Campaign.


There have been a number of high-profile repatriations by American museums in recent months. The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, and the Metropolitan Museum (Euphronios Krater) in New York have both agreed to return antiquities.

A former curator at the Getty, Marion True is on trial in Rome for conspiring to deal in Italian antiquities. This has had a very unpleasant public relations consequences for the Getty. Italy has demanded the return of 52 Antiquities from the Getty. The two parties have been negotiating a return of many of the objects for many months. However this fall, Italy abruptly broke of talks with the Getty, and said no agreement could be reached unless the Getty returned the Bronze. If the Getty did not agree to these terms, the Italians threatened the Getty with a “cultural embargo”.

Francesco Rutelli, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Culture and Heritage sent an Op-Ed to the Wall Street Journal saying:

Italy has been trying for over six months to conclude an agreement with Los Angeles’s Getty Museum on 46 ancient works of art that were illicitly removed from our country. I still hope to succeed. But on one point, I am unable to understand the museum’s position. How can they think that the Italian government will accept an agreement that contemplates renouncing possession of those works of art?

The 46 works that we are waiting for include the Venus illicitly removed from Morgantina in Sicily , and the bronze Athlete that was hauled up in a fishing net from the waters of the Adriatic sea and later secretly smuggled out of Italy in total violation of its laws.

What then of the statue itself? To better evaluate Italy’s claims, we need to look at the circumstances under which it was found. “The Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth” is an almost life-size figure of an athlete wearing a victory wreath. The Statue was created in Greece, possibly by Alexander the Great’s Court Sculptor Lysippos, but it may have been sculpted by another. It was created sometime between the 4th and 2nd Century B.C. Now my Italian colleagues rightly pointed out that a number of Greek settlements were founded in what we today think of as Italy.

In June, 1964 the Statue was recovered in modern times, by complete accident, off the northern Adriatic coast by fisherman from the Italian city of Fano. They pulled up a heavy object covered in barnacles. The most likely explanation for the find in the Adriatic is that it was taken from Greece in Roman times, and the vessel was lost at sea. A number of Greek objects were taken by invading Roman armies, the most noteworthy instance was during the fall of Syracuse. When the fisherman returned to Fano, they decided to sell the statue. The statue changed hands a number of times.

We know that Giacomo Barbetti purchased the statue from the fisherman. For a time, Barbetti and his two brothers stored the statue at the home of Father Giovanni Nagni. Barbetti then sold the statue to another man for 4,000,000 lire, not a great sum of money. It would have amounted to about $4,000. In 1966, the 3 Barbettis and Father Nagni were charged with purchasing and concealing stolen property under Italy’s 1939 Antiquities Law. The prosecution reached the Court of Appeals of Rome, however it overturned the convictions for 2 reasons (1) The prosecutors did not establish the statue came from Italian waters, and (2) there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that the statue was of “artistic and archaeological interest”. After the Barbetti’s sold the statue, the Provenance (chain of title) of the statue is a bit vague, and open to some speculation. Most likely it went through a series of owners, in an attempt to achieve a bona fide purchase at some point. It went from a Brazilian Monastery to England, and later to Munich.

In 1977, the Getty Trust purchased the Bronze for $3.95 million. It has been publicly displayed since 1978. Until 2006, Italy made no more formal requests for the Bronze, though they did ask the Getty to evaluate the possibility of returning the statue to Italy in 1989.

Legal Analysis of the Dispute

Even if the statue was found in Italian national waters, it’s nearly impossible to prove at this point. The criminal trials of the 3 Barbetti’s and Father Nagni loom large here. Italian prosecutors were not able to establish in 1968 that the Bronze was discovered in Italian territorial waters. To attempt to prove it nearly 40 years on is nearly impossible.

If the statue had been found in Italian national waters, both US and Italian law would dictate that Italy owns the Bronze. The 1939 Italian Patrimony law requires that the object was declared within the territory of Italy to apply. To be sure, if Italy was able establish the statue had been discovered in Italian national waters they would have brought a legal action long ago in US federal court, or even had Federal prosecutors seize the statue.

Illegal Export from Italy Does Not Dictate It should be handed over to Italy

Logically, the Bronze came ashore in Italy after it was discovered. Italian law requires that antiquities deemed of interest by the State, even those owned by private individuals cannot be exported without a license. US law does not enforce foreign export regulations. This goes back to the general rule that Public laws of another nation will not be enforced. US v. Schultz, 333 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2003), US v. McClain,545 F.2d 988 (5th Cir. 1977). Also, there are a lot of different kinds of export restrictions, and they are not always working well in limiting illicit trade. The reasons for this are beyond our present concern, but it is well settled that most nations will not enforce the export restrictions of another nation.

International Law

Italy has argued that international treaties dictate the Bronze should be returned. What they are referencing is the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

This does impose on states an obligation to prevent the illicit export of cultural property. However, it contains no provisions mandating the return or permitting the seizure of objects, except those that have been stolen.

The Convention is by its own terms, not in force unless enacted into domestic law. However, when the statue was imported into the US, neither Italy nor the US had ratified the Convention.

Ethical Analysis of the Dispute

Finally, what are the values we should look at in evaluating cultural property controversies?

  1. Archaeological Context

  2. Preservation of the Object

  3. Access by the Public

  4. International Movement

  5. Preserving a National Patrimony of Works

Italy’s position relies on the creation of some kind of nexus between Italy’s cultural heritage and the Bronze based on the time it was brought ashore by the fishermen at Fano. This is a very difficult argument for the Italians to win in my view. What’s more, the Italian authorities are ignoring the economic value of the Bronze: Maurizio Fiorilli: Italy’s Chief Antiquities Prosecutor has said “The economic value is of little consequence. What is important is the gain Getty will derive on the ethical plane. Moral gain is the reward. Also, the monetary value of the objects is not Italy’s problem. It is the problem of those who spend good money for objects that are without clear title and are illicitly removed from their place of cultural origin. It is up to the authorities in the USA who are responsible for controlling the Getty to investigate how the money was spent. Culture predisposes honesty and transparency.”

Part of the problem here is the two different ways Italy and the Getty seem to be evaluating the claim. Italy is asserting an ethical claim to the statue based on its ties to Greek culture. However, the US has a very strong sense of Greek and Roman culture as well. After all, the Supreme Court is a copy of classical architecture.

None of the 5 core values come down on Italy’s side in my view. Destruction of archaeological context is a huge problem, and one of the worst aspects of the illicit trade. However, this was a chance find, the fishermen weren’t doing anything wrong. Other objects in the Getty’s collection should certainly be returned, and the Getty has in fact agreed to return 26 objects of the contested objects. The question becomes, why is Italy insisting on the Bronze? Why are they preventing a good faith compromise here by insisting on a tenuous claim to the bronze?

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

"Statue of a Victorious Youth"

·Ea Earlier this week I had the great pleasure in giving a presentation to the University of Aberdeen Legal research Society. I discussed the very public dispute between Italy and the Getty museum regarding the “Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth”. The discussion which ensued was furthered greatly by the presence of Neil Curtis, of the Marischal Museum, as well as a couple of Italian colleagues. We had a very interesting discussion, and much of the credit for that goes to them. I would like to outline here my general comments on the dispute. I have posted on many of these ideas before, but if nothing else the dispute over the Bronze allows a timely and interesting introduciton to cultural policy and repatriation in general.

To As the LA Times put it last fall, “To whom does a statue made in ancient Greece, stolen by Romans and found in the Adriatic by Italian fishermen 2,000 years later, rightfully belong?”

· · First, what is the Getty trust, and why has it gotten itself into trouble in recent decades? J. Paul Getty was an American Industrialist, and the founder of the Getty Oil company. He started the Getty Trust in 1953. Today, the Trust may be the richest art institution in the world, boasting assets of close to $9 billion dollars. In the 1980’s Italy pursued a very aggressive antiquities-buying campaign.

· Italy has a large amount of discovered and undiscovered antiquities. It is also an industrialized nation. Many of the nations which are considered source nations (i.e. those that export more cultural objects than they import) are underdeveloped. So Italy is in a unique position. Historically, Italian antiquities have been exported to the rest of Europe, and other parts of the world. Increasingly, Italy has sought to prevent the loss of these cultural objects. The last 18 months has seen the Italian Culture Ministry lead a very aggressive repatriation campaign with three components 1. Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions, 2. Raised repatriation claims with Museums and Private collectors, 3. An Increasingly Vitriolic Public Relations Campaign.

· Also, There have been a number of high-profile repatriations by American museums in recent months. The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, and the Metropolitan Museum (Euphronios Krater) in New York have both agreed to return antiquities.

· A former curator at the Getty, Marion True is on trial in Rome for conspiring to deal in Italian antiquities. This has had a very unpleasant public relations consequences for the Getty

· Italy has demanded the return of 52 Antiquities from the Getty. The two parties have been negotiating a return of many of the objects for many months. However this fall, Italy abruptly broke of talks with the Getty, and said no deal could be done unless the Getty returned the Bronze statue. If the Getty did not agree to these terms, the Italians threatened the Getty with a “cultural embargo”.

· Also last year, the California State Attorney General investigated possible misconduct at the Getty.

· Francesco Rutelli, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Culture and Heritage

· On Jan. 17, 2007 Rutelli sent an Op-Ed to the Wall Street Journal.

· Italy has been trying for over six months to conclude an agreement with Los Angeles’s Getty Museum on 46 ancient works of art that were illicitly removed from our country. I still hope to succeed. But on one point, I am unable to understand the museum’s position. How can they think that the Italian government will accept an agreement that contemplates renouncing possession of those works of art?

· The 46 works that we are waiting for include the Venus illicitly removed from Morgantina in Sicily , and the bronze Athlete that was hauled up in a fishing net from the waters of the Adriatic sea and later secretly smuggled out of Italy in total violation of its laws.

· The Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth is an almost life-size figure of an athlete wearing a victory wreath. The Statue was created in Greece, possibly by Alexander the Great’s Court Sculptor Lysippos, but it may have been sculpted by another. It was created sometime between the 4th and 2nd Century B.C.

· Factual Background

· Recovery in the Adriatic

· In June, 1964 the Statue was recovered in modern times, by complete accident, off the northern Adriatic coast by fisherman from the Italian city of Fano.

· They pulled up a heavy object covered in barnacles. The most likely explanation for the find in the Adriatic is that it was taken from Greece in Roman times, and the vessel was lost at sea. A number of Greek objects were taken by invading Roman armies, the most noteworthy instance was during the fall of Syracuse

· Subsequent Sale

· When the fisherman returned to Fano, they decided to sell the statue.

· The statue changed hands a number of times. The best record of these transactions came in 1965 when the Italian police (Carabinieri) investigated the statue.

· Giacomo Barbetti purchased the statue from the fisherman. For a time, Barbetti and his two brothers stored the statue at the home of Father Giovanni Nagni. Barbetti then sold the statue to another man for 4,000,000 lire, the equivalent of about 2,000 pounds.

· Prosecutions

· In 1966, the 3 Barbettis and Father Nagni were charged with purchasing and concealing stolen property under Italy’s 1939 Antiquities Law. It dictates that protected antiquities, found by chance, belong to the Italian State, and one who takes possession of these objects commits theft.

· Magistrate Court of Perugia: Insufficient evidence for a conviction for 2 reasons. First, the prosecution had not established that the statue was of historic and artistic value (one of the elements for the offense). Second, the Italian prosecutors were unable to prove that the statue was found in Italian national waters.

· The Court of Appeals of Perugia reversed the lower court, holding the elements of the crime were satisfied, as the statue had been purchased in Italian territory, and the defendants had behaved as if they had something to hide.

· The Supreme Court of Cassation annulled the Court of appeals of Perugia decision, arguing it had used inadequate reasoning.

· Finally the Court of Appeals of Rome confirmed the convictions would not stand for 2 reasons (1) The prosecutors did not establish the statue came from Italian waters, and (2) there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that the statue was of “artistic and archaeological interest”. Remember, at the time the statue was sill covered in marine encrustation.

· The Provenance (chain of title) of the statue is a bit vague, and open to some speculation. Most likely it went through a series of owners, in an attempt to achieve a bona fide purchase at some point. It went from a Brazilian Monastery to England, and later to Munich.

· Purchase

· In 1977, the Getty Trust purchased the Bronze for $3.95 million. It has been publicly displayed since 1978.

· Investigations After the Purchase:

· 1977: Interpol requested the US Customs service investigate the legal status of the Bronze, and verify that the statue had entered the US with property entry documents, and determine whether the Getty had conducted the necessary due diligence before purchasing the statue. The investigation yielded no conclusive proof that the Getty had purchased the Bronze in bad faith, or that Italy had title. In 1984 Interpol informed Italy that no further investigations would be conducted without some demonstration of Italian ownership.

· The intervening years: Until 2006, Italy made no more formal requests for the Bronze, though they did ask the Getty to evaluate the possibility of returning the statue to Italy in 1989.

· Legal Analysis of the Dispute

· The Statue was found outside Italian Territorial Waters

· Even if the statue was found in Italian national waters, it’s nearly impossible to prove at this point. The criminal trials of the 3 Barbetti’s and Father Nagni loom large here. Italian prosecutors were not able to establish in 1968 that the Bronze was discovered in Italian territorial waters. To attempt to prove it nearly 40 years on is nearly impossible. Of 2006, the Italians brought forth a number of hearsay statements and other witnesses who argued the statue was found within the Italian territorial waters (6 nautical miles), 1942 Italian Navigation Code. However, all of the fishermen have argued the statue was found 30-40 miles from the Italian coast, far outside the territorial waters.

· If the statue had been found in Italian national waters, both US and Italian law would dictate that Italy owns the Bronze. The 1939 Italian Patrimony law requires that the object was declared within the territory of Italy to apply. Similarly, under US law, Peru v. Johnson require strong evidence that an object was, in fact, found in the territory of the country claiming it. To be sure, if Italy was able establish the statue had been discovered in Italian national waters they would have brought a legal action long ago in US federal court, or even had Federal prosecutors seize the statue.

· Illegal Export from Italy Does Not Dictate It should be handed over to Italy

· Logically, the Bronze came ashore in Italy after it was discovered. Italian law requires that antiquities deemed of interest by the State, even those owned by private individuals cannot be exported without a license. Articles 1, 35, 36 of the 1939 Italian Patrimony Law.

· US law does not enforce foreign export regulations. This goes back to the general rule that Public laws of another nation will not be enforced. US v. Schultz, 333 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2003), US v. McClain,545 F.2d 988 (5th Cir. 1977). Also, there are a lot of different kinds of export restrictions, and they are not always working well in limiting illicit trade. The reasons for this are beyond our present concern, but it is well settled that most nations will not enforce the export restrictions of another nation.

· International Law

· Italy has argued that international treaties dictate the Bronze should be returned. What they are referencing is the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

· This does impose on states an obligation to prevent the illicit export of cultural property. However, it contains no provisions mandating the return or permitting the seizure of objects, except those that have been stolen.

· The Convention is by its own terms, not in force unless enacted into domestic law. However, when the statue was imported into the US, neither Italy nor the US had ratified the Convention.

· Customary International law would not support the return of the Bronze either. Customary international law has “not been interpreted to render the importer or possessor of an art object subject to action solely on the ground that the object was exported in violation of another n country’s laws.” Bator, “An Essay on the International Trade in Art”.

· Ethical Analysis of the Dispute

· What are the values we should look at in evaluating cultural property controversies?

· Archaeological Context

· Preservation of the Object

· Access by the Public

· International Sharing of Culture

· Preserving a National Patrimony of Works

· Italy’s position relies on the creation of some kind of nexus between Italy’s cultural heritage and the Bronze based on the time it was brought ashore by the fishermen at Fano. This is a very difficult argument for the Italians to win in my view. What’s more, the Italian authorities are ignoring the economic value of the Bronze: Maurizio Fiorilli: Italy’s Chief Antiquities Prosecutor “The economic value is of little consequence. What is important is the gain Getty will derive on the ethical plane. Moral gain is the reward. Also, the monetary value of the objects is not Italy’s problem. It is the problem of those who spend good money for objects that are without clear title and are illicitly removed from their place of cultural origin. It is up to the authorities in the USA who are responsible for controlling the Getty to investigate how the money was spent. Culture predisposes honesty and transparency.”

· The Statue is Greek in origin, and Italy has never disputed this. Ironically, the statue was on it’s way to Italy because the Roman empire was very interested in Greek art.

· None of the 5 core values come down on Italy’s side in my view. Destruction of archaeological context is a huge problem, and one of the worst aspects of the illicit trade. However, this was a chance find, the fishermen weren’t doing anything wrong. Also, the object was found at sea, and archaeological context is not nearly as important at sea as on land.

Deaccessioning Controversy in Buffalo


A great deal of controversy has been brewing recently over decisions by museums to sell parts of their permanent collection, or deaccessioning. First, came the decision by the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts to sell Thomas Eakins’ The Cello Player to purchase an interest in The Gross Clinic.

Now, it seems the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo NY has decided to sell a great deal of its permanent antiquities collection to allow it to purchase more contemporary works. The Buffalo News has a list of the works for auction here. Among the works are classical sculpture, Chinese porcelain, a Benin bronze, and a number of other works.

Colin Dabkowski of the Buffalo News has an article in yesterday’s Buffalo News which indicates a group of concerned citizens called the “Buffalo Art Keepers” are going to challenge the sale in court. Donn Zaretsky at the Art Law blog has more, as does Lee Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum labels the dispute a “showdown”, but that may be a bit generous for the “Art Keepers”. I agree with Zaretsky that it will be extremely difficult for them to prevent the sale. What it will do is raise the cost, both in terms of legal expenses and public opinion, in deaccessioning.

Richard Stanton, the counsel representing the “Art Keepers” says “They intend to protect the membership’s interest in the collection and see that the museum follows its own mission statement and governing rules before they sell off masterpieces of art which have been assembled over the past 140 years.” Perhaps so, and I’ll freely admit I’m not an expert in museum governance regulations, but wouldn’t there be some kind of version of the Business Judgment Rule for museums. In the corporate context, the Business judgment rule states that courts will not step in and interfere with a corporate board’s business decisions. Surely, a similar situation must be at play here.

The “Art Keepers” are arguing that the museum has collected and displayed ancient art and antiquities in the past, but has recently changed its mission to focus on contemporary art. I think the neo-classical design of the museum itself would seem to speak to an earlier intention to display older works. However, shouldn’t a museum be able to shift positions? Do we want to box an institution in and prevent it from shifting a mission in the future? What the dispute really involves is a frustration with members of the public that the Albright-Knox has shifted away from displaying antiquities, and towards contemporary art. We may argue with that decision as a matter of personal taste, but museums should be able to switch positions, and we want our cultural institutions to have some degree of flexibility.

Another dimension to this decision may be that the recent string of repatriation requests by the Italians and Greeks may encourage a museum, especially one needing funds, to sell their antiquities before a source nation makes a very public and very unpleasant request for their return. I do not know the provenance of the Benin bronze the museum has decided to sell, but many of them were taken under less-than-savory circumstances in the 19th century in the Punitive Expidition of 1897. Nigeria has a compelling ethical case to be made for their return.

Limiting museum decision-making could severely restrict our ability to have strong and viable cultural institutions. You risk a great deal by forcing an institution to repatriate objects while also preventing it from selling and managing its collection in a responsible manner.

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

Massive Restitution Auction


Carl Vogel of the New York Times discusses the planned 3-stage auction of a portion of a group of 170 old master paintings recently returned to the heirs of Jacques Goudstikker. Over at the ArtLaw blog, Donn Zaretsky has more.

Goudstikker was a prominent art dealer who quickly fled Amsterdam in 1940. His successors, Mrs. von Saher and her two daughters, all currently Connecticut residents, are planning an international exhibition of many of the works, including some which will not be part of the auction. Last year’s settlement with the Dutch government marked the culmination of an 8-year legal battle. The three auctions will be in April in New York, in July in London, and finally in November in Amsterdam. One work which could fetch between $3-5 million is this painting, Ferry Boat With Cattle on the River Vecht Near Nijenrode by Salomon van Ruysdael.

One of the heirs, Charlene von Saher said the traveling exhibition would reveal to the world “a historical injustice put right.” Certainly, Goudstikker lost his collection of art, and the restitution may be correcting a historical wrong. Make no mistake though, the 3 heirs of Goudstikker, their legal counsel, and Christie’s all stand to make a great deal of money. Money is at the heart of restitution, not righting historical wrongs. Consider the recent decision of a Dutch court to award Roelof van Holthe tot Echteen, a lawyer for the 3 heirs, a $10.4 million bank guarantee for his services in working for the restitution.

I notice that in the US, Lawrence Kaye represents von Saher and her two daughters in the dispute. Kaye, along with Howard Spiegler operate a prominent art restitution practice in New York. The two have become celebrities of sorts. I was contacted a couple of weeks ago by Kelly Crow of the Wall Street Journal regarding the reputation of the two in the legal and scholarly community. I’m afraid I was not able to offer her too much for her story. The two have published quite a bit, and have been part of some of the most important art and antiquities cases in recent years. If you want to initiate a restitution action, they are the lawyers to call.

However, I don’t really think that the law looks at individuals as champions of a cause. They are partisan representatives for their client. Their duty is to advocate zealously for their client. Sometimes this might put them on the right side, others it may put them in more objectionable territory. Perhaps it is just my view on this, but I do not consider them “heroes” as such. That said, I would jump at the chance to join their restitution practice after I complete my thesis.

I am of two minds about restitution litigation. On the one hand, I think we should certainly endorse a practice which remedies past historical injustices, and Nazi spoliation is certainly a grave injustice. However, restitution is not always a positive development. I discussed the Schiele litigation earlier this week, which is a very sad situation. Also, these works were displayed at museums in Amsterdam accessible to the public. Is there not a value in having the works displayed there? Also, what is the rationale for returning works from WWII, but not earlier conflicts. Why should the Louvre not be emptied of all the works looted by Napoleon?

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

How to be a tomb raider?

Slate’s regular Explainer feature covers Tomb Raiding 101 this week. It is generally well-researched and informative. Christopher Beam does a good job of giving an enjoyable overview, but gets a few things wrong.

For example, Beam writes

“Tomb raider” is really just a glamorous way of describing an unlicensed archaeologist. Anyone who wants to dig in Egypt must first go through the arduous process of getting official permission. The authorities demand an explicit description of any project, proof that the diggers are with a university or museum, and a list of everyone who will be working on the site. The license request goes to the Supreme Council of Antiquities, a government agency that oversees all excavation projects. If you try to dig without the council’s permission, you’re breaking the law—so “tomb raiders” might be opportunists looking to sell their findings, or they might be serious excavators who simply can’t get permission for a dig.

That is correct for Egypt, but looting takes place all over the world. In Latin America for example, a number of unlicensed digs take place, but many of the excavations in that country are not conducted by the stereotypical tomb raider, or simple villager. In many cases, illicit excavation is done by “subsistence diggers”. David Matsuda has done some good work on this subject. This is a controversial aspect of the illicit trade, because it means that the reasons for allowing the illicit trade to continue may be as compelling as the claims of archaeologists and other advocates who argue for an end to the trade in antiquities. When you are digging in tombs for your own survival, the ethical rationale for your illegal activity increases dramatically in my view. However, just how many “subsistence diggers” there are, and if the availability of other means of survival is open to debate. At the very least, though many media reports talk about the criminal “tomb raider”, this stereotype may be inaccurate.

Beam also references the criminal conviction of Jonathan Tokeley-Parry in England, and his counterpart Frederick Schultz in the US in recent years. These two were hardly tomb raiders. They never unearthed an object. Rather, Parry dealt with Egyptians who found or dug up antiquities. They constructed elaborate provenances and disguised the antiquities for Schultz to sell in his Manhattan gallery. They weren’t raiders, they were dealers and middlemen.

Beam talks about the various international agreements relevant to the illicit trade, most notable the 1970 UNESCO Convention. He says these agreements make tomb raiding “very difficult”. I think that may be giving a bit too much deference to these international instruments. The most important impact these international conventions have had on the illicit trade is in terms of raising the profile of the problem, and encouraging Nations to take action. The UNESCO Convention does not return objects. Rather it is the individual Nations implementing structures that dictate their return.

So, though “Tomb Raiding 101” may be an entertaining read, if you are considering a foray into the illicit antiquities trade, I’d consider a more thorough introduction. The sad reality is that becoming a tomb raider may be far easier then you would think.

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

Massive Antiquities Arrests in Spain

Over the weekend in Spain, the civil guard in Cadiz announced arrests of three individuals alleged to have patrolled the shallow waters off Cadiz. They used an underwater robot to salvage objects from ancient shipwrecks, yielding treasures as varied as Roman anchors, Phoenician pottery, and bullets from the Battle of Trafalgar. The Guardian report has labeled the individuals “pirates”. Though their behavior violates Spanish law, I’m not sure we can call them pirates in the conventional sense. A number of companies legally salvage wrecks in other waters. Generally, English and American admiralty law rewards salvors. When property is lost at sea, the rescuer can claim a salvage award on the property. That doesn’t appear to be the case for the defendants in Cadiz though. I would guess that the defendants were patrolling within Spain’s territorial waters. An important issue at the criminal trial will likely be how the prosecutors can prove the objects were taken within Spain’s waters. Of course, their claim seems to be helped by the fact that the individuals were hiding the objects in hidden compartments in their oxygen tanks. The criminal law probably triggers as soon as the objects were brought ashore

Without knowing too much about Spanish Admiralty law, Spain has outlawed salvage in this area, and with good reason. The port of Cadiz has been a bustling port for millennium, and has “the country’s largest shipwreck cemetery, holding an estimated €1.5bn in sunken gold, silver and pearls, according to Juan Manuel Gracia, president of the Association for the Recovery of Spanish Galleons.” No wonder then that Spain is attempting to restrict salvage in the area. As technology is increasingly opening the depths to exploitation, these disputes are likely to increase. Spain and England are currently disputing the wreck of the Sussex, a British warship which sank with $4 billion worth of gold in 1694.

It seems that the underwater treasure hunters had ties to others as well, because there are a number of reports today that 52 individuals have been arrested throughout Andalusia. The arrests seem to be linked to the three in Cadiz. The Guardian reports that “A team of 200 officers searched 68 flats to confiscate the pieces, many of which were bound for foreign collectors. The ring sent coins and small items through the mail. Police found larger pieces destined for Faro, Portugal, where they were to be flown to Belgium.” Reuters has a wire report as well. The reports boast that over 300,000 objects were recovered. That’s a staggering sum, and one wonders how many of the recoveries were of high quality. However, this image of recovered mosaics indicates that the authorities didn’t just recover anchors and bullets.

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

New Seizures


David Nishimura picked up on a couple of major seizures last week in Paris and Moscow which indicate the illicit trade in antiquities is still going strong.

First, the BBC reports that in Paris over 650 Malian objects were seized at the Charle de Gaulle airport (see picture from BBC). The artifacts included axe heads, flintstones, and rings. Most of the objects dated from a couple thousand BC, however some may have been over 200,000 years old. These objects should soon be returned to Mali, however the archaeological context surrounding them is of course lost. There is no word on what may have alerted the French authorities to this shipment. It seems there were “[looking] out for artefacts being exported from specific countries such as Mali”.

A similar story from from Moscow: MosNews reported last week that Russia’s “cultural watchdog” agency had seized Byzantine-era items from Turkey. Some of the objects appear to have been taken from the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara back in 1963.

Both shipments were seemingly on their way to American dealers and collectors.

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

52 Arrested for Antiquities Trafficking in Italy

From Bloomberg,

“Italian police arrested 52 people and recovered several hundred smuggled archeological artifacts as part of their “tomb raider” investigation into international art theft.

More than 300 carabinieri of the finance police and paramilitary art squad searched suspects’ homes in eight Italian provinces early today and found smuggled goods of “considerable worth,” Italy’s Culture Ministry said in an e-mail.

Three years of investigations into a group of Sicilian “tomb raiders” led to the searches, arrests and uncovering of a wider international network, with contacts in Germany, Switzerland, Spain, the U.K. and U.S., the statement said. The investigation and raids were coordinated by the magistrates from the Sicilian province of Gela, the e-mail said.”

The Bloomberg story got one important detail very wrong. It incorrectly stated that the Getty has agreed to return 52 antiquities to Italy. In fact, Italy demanded the return of 52 objects; the Getty has agreed to return 25 of them in principle, along with one other which was not on the list.

The Malta Star has more on this story as well. It seems that many of the Sicilians arrested were not “from usual criminal backgrounds but rather from the professions and the business community and also include collectors and antiquarians.” If that’s true, it would be quite a blow to the antiquities trade. One difficulty the Italian authorities may have is following through with convictions of these individuals, who may be considered upstanding members of their community.

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

3 Year Italian Investigation Yields Marble Reliefs


From the Daily Mail, it seems Italian police have recovered 12 marble reliefs depicting Roman gladiators. USA Today picks up an AP story as well, available here. The panels were discovered buried in a garden near Fiano Romano. The reliefs, made of Carrara marble, are thought to date to the 1st century BC. The images are stunning, as David Nishimura rightly points out. Officials say the pieces will be studied, restored, and then displayed at the Villa Giulia in Rome.

The Prosecutor, Paolo Ferri, says individuals have been charged, but their names have not been released. One thing I would like to know is, what archaeological context was destroyed in the process of removing this from the decorated tomb? How will the raiders be punished? I wonder as well, why the investigation took three years. That’s a very long time; I imagine they were waiting to catch the raiders trying to sell the pieces to a dealer or international buyer.

(Image by Plinio Lepri, AP)

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