Category: Repatriation

Cleveland Museum of Art and Italy Reach Repatriation Agreement

The Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA) and the Italian Culture Ministry announced today an agreement which will return 14 objects to Italy in exchange for loans of “a similar number of works of equal aesthetic and historical significance”. The loans will be for a “renewable” 25-year period. The objects are going back to Italy because they have been looted, stolen or illegally exported.

David Gill has compiled a list of the objects, and provided links to their description on the CMA website.

Here is the list:

1) Pig-shaped Feeding Vessel/Vaso plastico a porcellino.
2) Mule Head Rhyton/Rython a testa di mulo. (Pictured here).
3) Sardinian Warrior/Bronzetto nuragico.
4) Apulian Volute Krater by the Darius Painter; Departure of Anphiaros/Cratere a volute a figure rosse.
5) Etruscan Red-figure Duck Askos/Askos ad anatra a figure rosse.
6) Bird Askos/Askos campano ad uccello.
7) Dog “Lekanis” Bowl with Lid/Coppa e coperchio a figure rosse.
8) Apulian Gnathia Flat-Bodied Epichysis/Epichysis tipo Gnathia.
9) Apulian Gnathia Round-Bellied Epichysis/Epichysis tipo Gnathia.
10) Apulian Gnathia Lekythos/Lekythos tipo Gnathia.
11) Acorn Lekythos: An Eros Serving a Lady/Lekythos campana a figure rosse.
12) Corinthian Krater/Cratere a colonnette corinzio.
13) Pair of Bracelets/Due coppie di armille in argento.
14) 14th Century Italian Processional Cross/croce processionale in rame dorato del sec. XIV.

The announcement is not really a surprise. The former Culture Minister, Francesco Rutelli, had hinted at this deal for months. The deal is the result of a “friendly and collaborative 18-month negotiation” as reported by Steven Litt, the Cleveland Plain Dealer Art Critic. That’s the way both sides are describing the negotiations. Timothy Rub, director of the CMA told Litt “I think it’s always difficult when adverse claims are made against an object or objects in a museum’s collection, but the most important thing to do is to first of all determine if these claims have any merit, and if they do, to deal with them as transparently and as thoroughly as possible. This has been a very open and thoughtful discussion.”

Likewise, Maurizio Fiorilli, said “The director is an exquisite person, this was a negotiation among gentlemen. They always collaborated and exhibited great openness, therefore, I am content.” High praise indeed.

The crucial point to pick up on here is these objects were connected with Giacomo de Medici, which Italian and Swiss authorities raided in 1995. The polaroids they seized are the engine driving nearly all of these repatriations. Without that solid evidence, the chances are that these objects would not be returned. The restitution of these works is a positive developmetn to be sure, but will they continue? Has the antiquities trade learned its lesson? What about institutions who want to make further acquisitions? Are further acquisitions possible? Can we be sure they are legally excavated? Are the fundamental legal mechanics of the purchase and sale of antiquities different now than they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s? I don’t think so. The underlying problems persist, though at least public perception has changed markedly. On that front, perhaps judges will be more inclined to adopt more encompassing views of the foundational international legal agreements such as the 1970 UNESCO Convention, but the antiquities trade can still effectively evade legal safeguards.

To see how let’s contrast these returns with the CMA’s recently-acquired bronze Apollo, pictured here. Not being an art historian nor an archaeologist, I still think this Apollo is a much more interesting and valuable antiquity than most of the objects being returned. In fact it is slated to be the centerpiece of the CMA’s renovated classical exhibition. Litt reported today that there will be a joint scientific study of the statute which was acquired by the museum in 2004. The Apollo was the subject of another article by Litt in the Plain Dealer back in February. Evidence suggests the sculpture has been excavated for perhaps 100 years, though Italy has argued it was salvaged from the Adriatic in the 1990s and then illegally sold. The publicly-released provenance of the object seems a bit suspect. Its recent history stems from Ernst-Ulrich Walter, a retired German lawyer who said he foudn the statue lying in pieces when he recovered his family’s estate in the former East Germany.

It was then sold to a Dutch art dealer (Michael van Rijn perhaps?), then sold to the Phoenix Ancient art gallery. We have no idea where or how this stunning statue was found. There is no contextual information. Was it really in pieces for 100 years? The discussion and feeling from the CMA and Italy definitely don’t seem to indicate there will be a much in the way of a continued dispute over the object. And that’s because there is no evidence it was stolen, looted or illegally exported. Rather, there exists a paucity of information about its origins. That is not enough to base a legal claim.

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

Peru to Lawyer Up?


Apparently the Peruvian government has again decided to take legal action against Yale. Peruvian state media may be planning to litigate in its ongoing effort to recover thousands of Incan relics excavated in the early part of the 20th century by Hiram Bingham. Paul Needham continues his outstanding reporting on the dispute for the Yale Daily News (BBC)(AP)(via).

Needham reports:

While Peruvian officials have threatened a lawsuit since April, Yale officials said earlier this fall that they were hopeful the parties might be able to avoid legal action. Much of this optimism was the result of a meeting in late September that included, for the first time, Jose Antonio Garcia Belaunde, the Peruvian foreign minister. Belaunde had never before been involved in the negotiations, and some at Yale saw his presence at the meeting in an optimistic light.

“The fact that the minister feels that it’s appropriate for him to intervene suggests that there is a desire to reach an understanding,” Richard Burger, the Yale archaeologist most closely associated with the artifacts, said last month. “Because if [Peruvian officials] wanted to go to court, they could have just left things as they were.”

But Belaunde’s involvement with the negotiations was brief; Peru’s new minister of labor and employment promotion, Jorge Villasante, has now been charged with overseeing the selection of a lawyer and the potential filing of a suit.

I think this is an unfortunate decision. Yale had seemingly agreed to a very fair settlement with Peru, but that tentative deal fell through. In a Memorandum of Understanding with Peru Yale had agreed to build a museum and research center, would help sponsor an international travelling exhibition and return the objects after the expiration of a new 99-year lease.

I wonder what the chances of this potential suit would be. This would seem to push the envelope for repatriation litigation . Just thinking speculatively, the statute of limitation problem would be a tricky hurdle for Peru. It could perhaps bring suit in New York and argue the limitations period did not begin to run until a demand and refusal by Yale, however one wonders if Yale could successfully defend by essentially arguing it has held the objects in a transparent way, and Peru should have long ago made its legal claim.

Or perhaps they might bring suit in a discovery rule jurisdiction, arguing the recent revelation that there are in fact 45,000 objects is a new triggering event which would make the action timely.

However even if they succeed on the limitations issue, it remains very much in question whether Bingham’s agreement gives Peru title to the objects (though apparently Bingham’s actions were controversial in Peru at the time). US courts have not always looked favorably on Peru’s vesting legislation (see Peru v. Johnson), and I’m not sure what provisions were in place when Bingham was re-discovering Machu Pichu. This has been a fascinating dispute, in chief part because Yale has seemingly been very open, and has offered a great deal to Peru. Perhaps I’m missing something here, but I wonder if Peru’s indigenous rights movement might have its priorities the wrong way around in this case.

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

3 Trucks Worth of Antiquities

The AP is reporting this afternoon that Switzerland is returning 4,400 objects to Italy, three trucks worth:

GENEVA (AP) — Switzerland is returning 4,400 ancient artifacts stolen from archaeological sites in Italy, including ceramics, figurines and bronze daggers dating as far back as 2,000 B.C., prosecutors said Thursday.

The transfer will require three tractor-trailers and all but end a seven-year legal battle over the antiquities.

They were seized in 2001 in storage rooms belonging to two Basel-based art dealers after a tip-off from Italy, said Markus Melzl, a spokesman for city prosecutors. The couple have since lost several court battles to prevent the antiquities from being returned to Italy, Melzl said.

More than half the objects were from the eastern Italian region of Apulia, an area that was heavily influenced by ancient Greek culture, said Guido Lassau, a Swiss archaeologist who worked on the case.

They include richly decorated vases and so-called kraters, large vessels that were used for mixing wine with water. The objects were stolen from upper-class tombs dating from the fifth to third centuries B.C., according to Lassau.

That’s a lot of lost context.

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

Call for Return of Chinese "Cultural Relics"

Both China Daily and CCTV have reported on China’s efforts to seek the return of two bronze animal heads, which were stolen from Beijing’s Old Summer Palace in 1860 by an Anglo-French coalition during the Second Opium War. They were created in the 18th century. I learned with great interest that it was Lord Elgin who ordered the burning of the Summer Palace — perhaps to discourage Chinese forces from kidnapping and as recompense for mistreating prisoners. Students of history will know his father was Thomas Bruce, the 7th Lord of Elgin who removed the Parthenon frescoes from Greece.
Charles George Gordon, a 27-year-old captain in the Royal Engineers wrote:

We went out, and, after pillaging it, burned the whole place, destroying in a vandal-like manner most valuable property which [could] not be replaced for four millions. We got upward of £48 apiece prize money…I have done well. The [local] people are very civil, but I think the grandees hate us, as they must after what we did the Palace. You can scarcely imagine the beauty and magnificence of the places we burnt. It made one’s heart sore to burn them; in fact, these places were so large, and we were so pressed for time, that we could not plunder them carefully. Quantities of gold ornaments were burnt, considered as brass. It was wretchedly demoralising work for an army.

These heads, one of a rabbit and one of a mouse were two of 12 sculptures which were taken. Five others are still missing. Christies has announced these objects will be on sale next February in the Yves Saint Laurent and Pierre Berge Collection auction in Paris. At least some of the proceeds from the sale will be used for AIDS prevention. The two items are expected to fetch at least 8 million Euros. Any legaly claim for these sculptures will have long-since expired, despite the less-than-noble way in which they were looted.

The China’s Lost Cultural Relics Recovery Fund, a privately funded organization has indicated it may try to purchase these objects and return them to China. In 2003 and 2004 the organization attempted to buy back these objects, but the asking price was $10 million. As the spokesperson told Daily China, “At that time, we bought back the pig’s head for less than $1 million. We think the offered prices are unreasonable and unacceptable.” China, an emerging economic power is in a unique position among nations of origin, as it can often use its considerable economic clout to buy back objects which were removed from the country during the imperial age.

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

Returning a Stolen Eye

Zahi Hawass has announced Switzerland will return a 19 inch eye from this statue of Amenhotep III, according to AFP.  The statue was uncovered in 1970, and the eye was stolen in 1972.  Hawass said the eye was sold to an American antiquities dealer; who auctioned it at Sotheby’s; then it was bought by a German antiquities dealer; and it ended up in a museum in Basel, Switzerland.  That’s the typical journey of a stolen or illegally excavated antiquity. 

It’s a very good thing this eye is being returned — seemingly in an amicable way.  The wire story raises more questions though:  will the Swiss museum receive loans or other compensation; who are these dealers; are they still buying and selling objects. 

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

Now Jordan Sends Antiquities to Iraq


Syria sent 40 objects stolen from the National Museum back to Iraq last month, and now Jordan will return 2,466 objects, including gold coins and jewelry back to Iraq, the AFP is reporting.

That’s a staggering number of objects, most of which were seemingly seized by Jordanian customs officials. One wonders how many objects slipped through these checkpoints and will soon be sold as “intercultural” style objects?

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

Italy-Cleveland Museum of Art Agreement?

On Friday, the AP reported that Italy and the Cleveland Museum of Art had reached an oral agreement to return some antiquities to Italy. Lee Rosenbaum rightly points out that this may be an example of Italy (specifically its departing minister Francesco Rutelli) jumping the gun before an agreement has in fact been concluded.

Though Rutelli has certainly achieved a number of notable successes during his term as Italy’s Culture Minister, his actions have also seemingly been motivated in many cases by the desire to gain political and media attention. This present announcement seems to be a case of Rutelli attempting to take credit for one last repatriation as he is soon to be replaced by Sandro Bondi in Berlusconi’s new Italian government. Though an agreement may have been reached in principle with the Cleveland Museum of Art, nothing is set in stone nor reduced to writing, and negotiations appear to be ongoing. The principal issue in these cases often isn’t necessarily what will go back to Italy, but what kinds of loans and agreements Cleveland can hope to receive in return.

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

700 Antiquities Returned to Iraq


Syria returned 700 antiquities to Iraq on Wednesday, undoing in some small measure the theft and looting which has taken place since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Here’s an excerpt of the AP story:

The head of the Syrian Antiquities Department, Bassam Jamous, said some of the objects were from the Bronze Age and early Islamic era.

The treasures were returned during a ceremony at the Syrian National Museum attended by senior Syrian officials and the Iraqi state minister for tourism and antiquities affairs, Mohammad Abbas al-Oraibi.

Jamous did not specify the value of the artifacts or single out the most important pieces, but clay jars, coins, daggers and what appeared to be a large trunk were displayed at the ceremony.

Syrian Culture Minister Riyadh Nassan Agha also said a “priceless Iraqi piece” of important historical value had been seized two weeks ago by Syrian customs officers. He gave no details, saying only that it would be returned to Iraq later after experts examined it.

AFP has a wire story as well, estimating that 32,000 objects were looted from 12,000 archaeological sites. Those numbers, though they are just estimates, speak for themselves. Given that Syria has returned 700 objects, this begs the question: how many more objects have been transported out of Iraq and have not been seized or recovered. I imagine many objects, especially the most valuable ones, are being hidden in anticipation of sales in the distant future, much as art seized or confiscated by the Nazis is still appearing.

As an indication of how serious the Iraq government considers those who are convicted of smuggling antiquities, despite overcrowding in Iraqi prisons, individuals detained for antiquities-related offenses were not released along with a number of other detainees under a law passed in February by the Iraqi government to ease prison populations. Many may remember that last month Marine Col. Matthew Bogdanos argued insurgents may be using the antiquities trade to fund their activities.

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

Africa, Repatriation, and Universal Museums

There have been some very interesting exchanges in recent days between Dr. Kwame Opoku and Phillipe de Montebello of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Dr. Opoku wrote an interesting and provocative letter to museum directors entitled Is legality a viable concept for European and American museum directors.

I have been quite familiar with Dr. Opoku’s scholarly work for some time, and it’s refreshing to see him continue to use the internet to broadcast his arguments; especially as he is a powerful voice for African repatriations, which often receive short shrift when compared to similar arguments for the Mediterranean or Central and South America.

De Montebello responded to the open letter with the following:


I read with interest Dr. Kwame Opoku’s article EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN MUSEUM DIRECTORS AND THE LEGALITY CONCEPT? and glanced at the photo that accompanied it.

What a haunting, strange-looking object. There is no caption accompanying
the photograph so I looked in books and found that this was a product of
ancient Nigeria, the Nok culture. I also discovered that more than 2,000
years ago as well an Ife culture in Nigeria produced sculpture that I found
simply divine. As beautiful as anything produced at any time in the West.

Then I went to our African galleries and found — as must our audience of
some 4.5 million visitors a year — that Nigeria seemed to have produced no
art before the much later Benin period, well represented at the Metropolitan
Museum. Why is that? Simply because the Metropolitan Museum does not own
either a Nok or an Ife object. Their export and acquisition are strictly
forbidden, therefore the Metropolitan Museum has refrained from their
acquisition.

We have tried for years to convince the Nigerian authorities to place one
object from each of these great cultures on loan to the Metropolitan for the
benefit of our audiences, but unfortunately, to no avail.

Dr. Opoku believes all Nok, Ife, and Benin pieces outside of Nigeria should
be returned to Nigeria; that all works produced on its territory should
remain there.

How this advances broad knowledge of the rich cultural history of Nigeria is
a mystery to me.

He’s advancing a kind of internationalist perspective here. It strikes me as a bit unfair to say that if wrongfully acquired objects are returned, then all objects would have to be returned. However, some policies certainly do have as a consequence, the possibility of restricting the movement of objects. The difficulty here stems from his argument. He’s taking a grain of truth and extrapolating it to an almost illogical extreme. This happens all the time in policy and political debates, not just with respect to cultural heritage. Unfortunately much of the international law-making apparatus on the international level is incapable of successfully bridging these kinds of differences of opinions. As a result, partisans tend to push toward the margins rather than forge workable compromise.

Dr. Opoku responded with a letter which he forwarded to me, and probably others, including the Museum Security Network.

If the Metropolitan Museum has not been able to convince the Government of Nigeria to loan one object of each of the great cultures of Nigeria, there must be some reason which must have been explained by the Nigerian authorities. One cannot comment on this point without first studying the relevant correspondence.

The statement that “Dr. Opoku believes all Nok, Ife, and Benin pieces outside of Nigeria should be returned to Nigeria; that all works produced on its territory should remain there“ is surely incorrect and the maker of the statement knows it. As a person of culture who has spent a considerable part of my life visiting various museums all over the world, I reject very strongly this statement. It is an attempt to attribute to me an extreme position which can be easily dismissed instead of dealing with the serious arguments presented in detail (some would even say too much detail) in my various articles which are freely available on the internet.

Finally, Tom Flynn noted these exchanges and provided the following pointed analysis:

The problem here is the nature of the dialogue, which is not really a dialogue at all, but a series of embittered volleys that merely consolidates the entrenched positions of both parties. Dr Opoku continues to write uncompromising attacks on museum directors. One can understand his growing impatience, given the unwillingness of most museum directors to address what are clearly very serious issues passionately articulated. Moreover, when he does get a response, as was the case here, he is treated with the sort of patrician disdain that has become the lingua franca of leading museum directors across Europe and North America.

I regret I’m pressed for time today and don’t have time to dive into the substance of these arguments, however all these links are highly recommended.

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

More on Yale and Peru


On Sunday, Peru’s state news agency reported that Peruvian researchers have said Yale University researchers (i.e. Hiram Bingham) took more than 40,000 objects from Machu Picchu in the early part of the last century. This, the Peruvian news agency claimed, is 10 times more than the original estimate. Reuters has a summary in English.

Hernan Garrido Lecca released the inventory results to the state news agency. A team from Peru’s National Institute of Culture traveled to Yale in March to take an inventory of the objects at the University. Part of the discrepancy here may involve how these objects are accounted. If a ceramic object is in 15 pieces for example, does it qualify as 1 object or 15? I’m not sure of the answer to that question, perhaps there is a standard in the museum community? This may account for the discrepancy, rather than any bad faith on Yale’s part.

Some may remember Yale and Peru had a tentative agreement to settle the disposition of these objects, which resulted in a Memorandum of understanding back in September. That agreement appears to have been a good bargain for both parties.

Peru would receive title to the objects, many of the research pieces would remain in Connecticut under a 99-year lease, there would be an international traveling exhibitions, and finally Yale would help build a museum and research center in Cuzco. Such an institution would seem to be badly needed, as there are indications the current museum near the Aguas Calientes train station is not fit for purpose:

The doors were open to the air, which was moist from the nearby river, and the sole official was a caretaker who sold tickets and then exited the building. On display in the attractive (if unguarded) museum are the finds that Peruvian archaeologists have made at Machu Picchu in the years since Bingham’s excavations.

In February, former first lady of Peru Eliane Karp-Toledo had harsh words for the Memorandum of Understanding and for Yale University. Despite what would seem to be a very good agreement for both sides, Karp-Toledo was very critical of Yale University, and indeed Hiram Bingham III who discovered the objects. She argued the objects were only to be taken from Peru for 12 months, and that legal title to all the objects must be returned to Peru. She claimed “Yale continues to deny Peru the right to its cultural patrimony, something Peru has demanded since 1920.”

The repatriation claims are often tied to colonial mistreatment, and are often closely aligned with Indigenous-rights movements. Those may be good things, however in this case I am not sure what the current leaders of Peru would want to do differently or would seek. Yale has, it would appear, a very secure interest in the objects; and they are certainly not under any obligation to return them any time soon. By increasing the claims that Yale University has mistreated Peruvian heritage, I wonder if perhaps Peru may risk losing the bargaining chips which were gained in the 2007 MoU.

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