Repatriation – Page 9 – Illicit Cultural Property

Kimmelman on Drawing the Borders of Culture

Michael Kimmelman has a piece discussing the Parthenon sculptures and how it has influenced other repatriation debates. He seems to favor a cosmopolitan approach, and borrows a good deal from James Cuno without mentioning him by name. After all the mention of Cuno in some circles often shuts off any reasoned discourse. And though he seems to be frustrated with his conclusion—that the Parthenon sculptures taken by Elgin should remain in London—he manages to make some thoughtful observations. His best argument may be comparing the Euphronios Krater to the Parthenon sculptures:

And in the end patrimony is about ownership, often of objects that as in the marbles’ case, come from bygone civilizations. What, in this context, does it really mean to own culture?

Italy recently celebrated the return of a national treasure after the Metropolitan Museum gave back a sixth-century B.C. Greek krater by the painter Euphronius that tomb robbers dug up outside Rome during the 1970s. Stolen property is stolen property. But how curious that an ancient Greek vase, which centuries after it was made came into the possession of an Etruscan collector (a kind of ancient Elgin) living on what is now the outskirts of Rome, and then ended up buried for thousands of years below what became modern Italy, is today Italian cultural patrimony. By that definition, Elgin’s loot is arguably British patrimony.

Thought-provoking stuff, well worth a read.

Michael Kimmelman, Who Draws the Borders of Culture?, The New York Times, May 4, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/arts/09abroad.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all (last visited May 6, 2010).

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

Italian Seizures, the Bronze Athelete, and the Getty

The Getty has decided to appeal the February decision in which an Italian court ordered the seizure of this statue, Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth. An Italian appeals court judged ordered the work returned to Italy. This was a new legal approach as nations as far as I’m aware have not attempted to bring forfeiture proceedings domestically, with an expectation that a foreign government or court would uphold the order. Perhaps the Italian courts could seize other assets the Getty has in Italy in lieu of recovery, but my initial conclusions are shared by Patty Gerstenblith in Martha Lufkin’s excellent summary of the current disposition of the dispute. Gerstenblith notes two problems. First, illegal export does not give Italy a tenable claim in U.S. courts. It may in conjunction with a law like the Cultural Property Implementation Act and bilateral agreements, but those were all enacted after the bronze was brought to California. Second, an awful lot of time has elapsed, and it is likely that an American court will take a dim view of the length of time Italy has taken before this action. Indeed, charges were brought in Italy against the fisherman who brought the bronze up in their nets in the 1960’s, but the defendants were acquitted.

There is an extralegal dimension to the appeal as well, in that Italy continues to put pressure on the Getty, and its means of acquisition of the statue.

We may question the Getty’s acquisition of the bronze, question where it currently belongs, and even debate the merits of restitution of these objects. However, there is no evidence that this bronze was “looted” in the same way the Euphronios Krater was for example. All reports I’m aware of indicate the fishermen fortuitously brought this up in the Adriatic, in international waters, in 1964. They may have later passed it on to others who smuggled it out of the country, but this is not a looted object.

For noteworthy previous posts on the bronze, see here.

Martha Lufkin, Greek bronze will stay in the Getty Villa, The Art Newspaper, April 14, 2010.

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

Peru has Dropped Some Claims Against Yale

Peru has decided not to allege fraud and conspiracy claims against Yale University in its lawsuit over objects removed from Machu Picchu in the early part of the 20th century. One of the main points of contention in the dispute is whether this action is timely. It surely would have if brought soon after the objects were removed, but Peru will either have to justify waiting decades to bring a claim, or convince a court that Peruvian law applies—perhaps under the lex originis rule.

For background on the dispute see these posts.

From the AP:

The withdrawal of some claims comes after Peru hired new lawyers who said the move would simplify the case and “facilitate resolution” of the dispute. Yale’s lawyers had warned that the claims violated civil procedures prohibiting frivolous arguments.

The fraud allegations that were withdrawn accused Yale of intending to deceive Peru by promising to return the artifacts and conspiring with Bingham to retain the artifacts unlawfully by fraudulently assuring that Yale would return the artifacts when Peru demanded.

“Peru has dropped all claims of Yale having intentionally done anything wrong,” said Jonathan Freiman, Yale’s attorney. “We’re glad that they have done so, but we think the rest of the case is equally misguided and should be withdrawn, as well.” . . .

“Yale has wholly betrayed Peru’s trust and confidence,” the lawsuit states. “Yale has exploited its holding of the Machu Picchu collection for commercial and financial gain at the expense of the interests of the Peruvian people and in violation of the fiduciary obligations that Yale owes Peru.”

John Christoffersen, Peru lifts some Machu Picchu claims against Yale, AP, March 10, 2010 (last visited Mar 10, 2010).

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

China’s Repatriation Team Visits the Met

“That wasn’t so bad after all”

So said James C.Y. Watt, the head of Asian art at the Met after a team of Chinese experts visited the institution looking for objects which had once been at the Chinese Old Summer Palace in Beijing. China has been looking to buy or repatriate objects from the Old Summer Palace.

The looting of the palace during the Second Opium War in 1860 holds great historical significance for many in China. In response to the execution of twenty European and Indian prisoners, Lord Elgin (son of the the Elgin who removed the sculptures from the Parthenon) ordered the destruction of the palace. As 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.

This destruction continues to shape how China views its relationship with the West. Chinese experts have conducted a campaign to seek the return of many of the objects looted from the palace. This includes the “guerilla bidding” last year which effectively prevented the auction of two bronzes from the palace last year.

Andrew Jacobs account of the visit calls into question the motives of the Chinese delegation. He throws quotations around the phrase “treasure hunting team”, but the tenor in his piece echoes the pejorative of the phrase. Many in the West still fail to engage with the fundamental issue. Had the White House been burned and sacked in 1860, wouldn’t a powerful America be doing everything it could to seek the return of these objects?

Jacobs references the criticism of Chinese destruction of historical sites. But nearly every nation can be accused of the same. What about the Native American burial mound which was decimated to create fill-dirt for a Sam’s Club in Alabama this year? Does that mean America is an unsuitable steward for cultural treasures?

Andrew Jacobs, China Hunts for Art Treasures in U.S. Museums, The New York Times, December 17, 2009.

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

Ceremony for Egyptian Relics

Pictured here are French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak during a ceremony today. The French returned some relics taken from Egypt in recent years which were purchased by the Louvre in 2000 and 2003. Egypt had made a dramatic call for the immediate return of the objects, ordering the removal of all French archaeologists from Egyptian sites if the objects were not returned. They were returned quickly.

Egypt demanded the return of the stolen fragments in October and broke off relations with the Louvre. Afterwards, France agreed to hand back the works, which are from Luxor’s Valley of the Kings. “France is particularly committed to fighting the illegal trafficking of works of art,” Sarkozy said, in a statement. The other four artefacts were to be given to the Egyptian embassy in Paris during Mubarak’s visit to Paris, French officials said. The French president emphasized that the Louvre museum had acted in good faith when it purchased the artefacts and said that doubts were only raised in November during archaeological work at the site. Egypt had produced photographs from the mid-1970s showing the fragments in place on the tomb’s wall.

AFP: France returns stolen Louvre relics to Egypt, December 14, 2009.

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

The FBI Returns pre-Columbian Antiquities

On Tuesday the FBI announced it was returning 150 pre-Columbian artifacts which had been smuggled out of Peru and Ecuador. The objects were found in the home of a recently deceased man, who had apparently been a collector of the antiquities.

The 153 pieces of jewelry as well as pottery, baskets, sculptures and figurines were found last April in the home of a man after he died in his retirement community in Avon Park, Florida, according to the bureau’s Miami field office.
Experts indicated that the artifacts, presented in a Miami ceremony to representatives of the Peru and Ecuador governments, were between 500 and 3,200 years old, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said.
The FBI teamed up with specialists from Florida International University who determined that 141 of the pieces originated in what is present-day Peru, and the other 12 came from neighboring Ecuador.
“These artifacts represent the cultural heritage of Peru and Ecuador. They can never be replaced and should be on display for many to see, not locked away,” said the FBI’s chief agent in Miami, John Gillies.
“We are honored to return these items to their rightful owners,” Gillies added.

These announcements have become almost routine, with an estimated 2,600 items recovered just since 2004.

AFP: FBI returns smuggled artifacts to Peru, Ecuador, Dec. 1, 2009.

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

First British Repatriation after Nazi-Era Law

The British Library will be returning the Benevento Missal, which was stolen from a cathedral during World War II. The British Library has possessed the book since 1947. This is the first repatriation of an actual object under the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act which applies only to claims during the Holocaust era, 1933-45. The Spoliation Advisory Panel recommended the missal should be returned four years ago to the cathedral.

It was brought to Britain by an intelligence officer, Captain Douglas Ash, who bought it in Naples in 1944 and later auctioned it in London.
Captain Ash wrote in a letter: “I bought an old book in Naples in April 1944, knowing nothing about it, except that it was very old, being described by the second-hand bookseller as molto antico … I am interested in anything old and have a collection of swords and armour, but this book is completely beyond me.”
How the book reached Naples is unknown, but the cathedral argued successfully that it vanished from its library after it was bombed in September 1943, directly relating the loss to “circumstances of the mayhem of war”. Jeremy Scott, of the law firm Withers, who represented the cathedral on a pro bono basis, welcomed the new law. “I will be submitting a renewed claim [on the cathedral’s behalf] after it comes into force,” he said.

By all accounts this was the right thing to do with the missal. Yet the wrongful purchase here had little connection with the holocaust, only during the “holocaust era”. It was a sale which occurred in the wake of armed conflict, and presumably the missal was appropriated in an effort to remove valuable objects from the cathedral in anticipation of allied military action.

Will this signal a creep toward increased repatriation for objects in other institutions, and for other historical periods? This law has a limited scope, and will expire in 10 years. In the United States much of the legal groundwork for repatriation first came in the context of holocaust-era claims via repatriation lawsuits. It will be interesting to see whether a similar development may take hold in the U.K. in the wake of this law and the coming claims.

Ben Hoyle, British Library to return Benevento Missal under Nazi loot law – Times Online, The Times, December 1, 2009.

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

German Court Orders Repatriation of Gold vessel to Iraq

Lucian Harris, for the Art Newspaper, reports on the claims by Iraq to a miniature gold vessel:

The case, which has focused attention on the sale of smuggled Iraqi artifacts in Germany, began late in 2004 when the slightly dented six-centimetre-high gold vessel was included in a sale at Munich auction house Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger, described as being of Mediterranean origin, possibly from Troy and dated to the Roman Iron-age period (1st century AD). However, the vessel was spotted by an unnamed expert who believed that it was in fact much older and of Sumerian origin.

. . .

The case has been something of a personal mission on the part of Iraqi ambassador to Berlin Alaa Al-Hashimy, whose interest in cultural affairs stems from his background as an architect . In 2007 legislation was passed in Iraq requiring envoys in foreign countries to monitor the appearance of any Mesopotamian artifacts on the commercial market. Furthermore, this August a letter of understanding was signed between the two governments to ensure cooperation in cases where Iraqi artifacts appear on the German market. A recent report on Azzaman news agency claimed that since the court’s ruling Iraqi diplomats in Germany have stopped the sale of 28 Mesopotamian artifacts believed to have been smuggled out of Iraq in the past five years.

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

5,000 and Counting

The BBC reports on the increasingly-aggressive efforts by Egypt to secure the return of objects from the British Museum and Germany’s Neues Museum. Zahi Hawass claims to have arranged for the return of some 5,000 artifacts:

Later this month Egyptian archaeologists will travel to the Louvre Museum in Paris to collect five ancient fresco fragments stolen from a tomb in the Valley of the Kings in the 1980s, but there are many other “stolen” antiquities which they also want back, reports the BBC’s Yolande Knell in Cairo.

One of the first artefacts that visitors see on entering the pink neoclassical facade of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo is a fake.

“This is a replica of the Rosetta Stone. It is the only object in the museum that is not real,” announces a tour guide, his voice echoing through the high-domed hall.”The original is kept in the British Museum.” Before leading his group on to the lines of old-fashioned cabinets filled with ancient treasures, he explains the significance of the basalt slab, which dates back to 196BC and was key to the modern decipherment of hieroglyphics.

The Rosetta Stone presents an interesting case. Would we think much of the stone if it hadn’t been for Thomas Young and Jean-François Champollion who managed to decipher the hieroglyphic writing? If so, doesn’t the British Museum have a closer connection to the stone, where it has been almost-continually displayed since 1802. Of course it was discovered by the French in 1799, and there is certainly a compelling case that those kinds of removals were wrongful.

The quest to regain Egypts antiquities, BBC, Nov. 11, 2009.

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

Update on Yale’s Cultural Heritage Lawsuits

The Yale Daily News updates two disputes involving Yale University. The first is a dispute involving the Night Cafe by Vincent Van Gogh:

Pierre Konowaloff, the descendant of a Russian aristocrat who once owned the painting, claims it is rightfully his because the Soviet government expropriated it from his family in 1918.
The Soviet government seized “The Night Café” from Konowaloff’s great-grandfather Ivan Morozov as part of the government’s mass nationalization of private property in the early 20th century. Konowaloff claims this constitutes a theft, delegitimizing any subsequent sale or purchase. Therefore, Konowaloff claims, Stephen Clark 1903, who bequeathed the painting to Yale in 1960, never actually owned it.
Clark was a trustee of the Museum of Modern Art and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In the early 1930s, he acquired the painting from the Knoedler Gallery in New York City, which had purchased it from the Matthiesen Gallery in Berlin, Germany; it was the Matthiesen Gallery that originally bought the painting from the Soviets.
Yale first responded to Konowaloff’s claims of ownership in May 2009, filing a lawsuit to assert the University’s ownership. Konowaloff responded with a counterclaim in March 2009, requesting the return of the painting and over $75,000 in damages.
Yale’s Oct. 5 motion argues that “it is well-established that a foreign nation’s taking of its own national’s property within its own borders does not violate international law,” and that the Soviet government’s original acquisition — and also Yale’s subsequent acquisition — of the painting was legal.
The motion also argues that Konowaloff’s claim came too late, since the statute of limitations for a dispute of ownership of this nature would have expired in the 1960s, three years after Yale publicized its acquisition of the painting.

The second is a dispute involving objects removed by Hiram Bingham from Machu Picchu:

In the case of the Inca artifacts, Yale is arguing it first gained control of the items when they arrived in New Haven in the 1920s, describing them in several Yale publications as part of the museum’s permanent collection.
“Decade after decade, Peru was content to let Yale hold itself out to the world as the owner of the objects,” the Oct. 16 motion reads. “[Peru] disregarded the reasonable time limits imposed by law for bringing its claims.”

Nora Caplan-Bricker, Yale moves to drop museum suits, Yale Daily News, October 27, 2009.

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