The Economic Benefits of Displaying Antiquities

ArtInfo reported this week (December 5, 2007) on the "economic benefit" of the new Greek and Roman Galleries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York:

The new Greek and Roman galleries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art have brought 764,000 visitors, $567 million in revenue, and $56.7 million in taxes to the city in the past seven months, according to the museum.

I suppose this is trying to deflect major criticism of the museum from senior North American classical archaeologists (see e.g. "The Time of Illicit Acquisitions is Long Gone").

Stephen L. Dyson ("Temple of Beauty Learning: the New Greek and Roman Galleries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art", Apollo, 165, no. 543) has recently noted:

Not only the Euphronios vase but other new material in the expanding Met collection assumed a central role in the international debate about 'who owned the past'. The debate remains very heated, with the Met assuming both conciliatory and truculent positions. Most of the new pieces in the Classical collection came with very little verifiable history. Most are in excellent condition, an indication to the experienced archaeologist that they were found in burial contexts. If even the stated presumed provenances are correct, most came from countries that have had strict, longstanding laws on the exportation of antiquities.

What has been the destructive impact on the archaeological record to supply these objects? What is the cultural deficit?

Sphere: Related Content