Art or Artifact? An opinion of Beyond Babylon

A brief review of the exhibition, Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Special Exhibitions: Beyond Babylon) allowed this author to reflect on current practices of exhibiting ancient artifacts. (A more comprehensive exhibition review was undertaken by Archaeology Magazine Editor Eti Bonn-Muller: ARCHAEOLOGY: The Art of Foreign Influence).

Participating institutions as well as foreign Ministries of Culture provided artifacts for display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA). Lebanon, Greece, and Egypt among many other source countries were an integral part of the exhibition. Loans from Turkey suggest good relations with the country after the 1993 return of the Lydian hoard. However, a large amount of loans also came from Western museums in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In each case, the source of the loan was documented on labels and plaques highlighting their contributions, also acknowledged in the glossy exhibition catalogue.
Read more. . .

In the extensive publication, the MMA included entries of objects that are not on display. Apparently, the Syrian government was very cooperative with the museum; however, their loans were not processed because it was “too difficult and risky” as suggested on a plaque fixed to the wall near the entrance. Initially, I thought this was posted as an admonishment by the museum of legislative restrictions and current politics. After further research, I discovered this curious addition refers to the 2008 amendment of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) regarding the immunity of seizure for temporary loans further discussed in the AIA Statement on Attachment of Cultural Objects. It seems as though the MMA is admirably following established legal codes.

Within the gallery, the visitor is struck by an issue all too familiar in the fabrication of exhibitions, that some of the objects lack details about provenance. It is always remarkable to see that the funders’ or lenders’ names are displayed without fail. However, the visitor is not always presented with information regarding the history of where and how an object was found and came to be displayed. Didactic plaques claim certain objects originated in ‘suggested’ contexts based on stylistic criteria or are “said to have come from” somewhere. Further information is omitted, which, in all actuality, may not be known by either the collectors or the museums that possess the pieces. For an exhibition like this, provenance is an important aspect because of the desire to relate the object to the archaeological context in order to express the variety of cultures exhibited. A large section comprised of objects discovered from the Uluburun shipwreck shows that information is possible when a legitimate excavation occurs. We know exactly what was dredged up from the sea, where it laid in the ships hull, and the associated artifacts. Additionally, this information is widely published and publicly available.

The contextual information that is available from legitimate excavations is outlined in the exhibition catalogue. According to Philippe de Montebello in the Foreword, “The rich resources of the museums of western Europe, whose pioneering archaeological work in many of these lands has been rewarded with a division of the finds, have also ensured that we are able to present as full a picture as possible. . .” This statement is problematic for several reasons. It is a shame that the “most significant works” are found outside of their countries of origin, but a bigger shame that contexts have been lost by collectors who ripped treasures from the ground. The sordid origins of archaeology and the glories of partage have been duly noted in other publications. Scholars argue that the restitution of historically looted artifacts is not the primary issue, but instead that looting of archaeological sites today is the major problem. I agree, but also feel that amends still need to be made and congratulations should not be so heartily issued to institutions that pioneered the rape of the past.

Overall, Beyond Babylon emphasizes the good relations between the MMA and its bed-fellows in order to organize this blockbuster exhibition. Similarly, Babylon: Myth and Reality is on display at the British Museum, attesting to the current interest in the subject and archaeology. The extent of material is admirable as well as the small fortune invested to organize and logistically realize the exhibition. However, visitors should be better equipped to ask tough questions about current issues. The audience should emerge from the exhibition wondering what is going on in the here-and-now at the sites highlighted. Excavations are taking place beyond the 1980s discovery of the Uluburun shipwreck and are only fleetingly alluded to, for example, the 2002 excavation of the Royal Palace of Qatna (Tell Mishrifeh). The introductory text offers good explanations of the various chambers of the tomb, while mounted photographs and a slide video replace the display of objects from the site.

Others more experienced with the subject matter than I would be better suited to point out the missing pieces and inconsistencies. I would be happy to entertain other comments and critiques. For one engaged in battling the crisis of the illicit antiquities trade and the looting of archaeological sites, it is a highly motivating exhibition that represents how artifacts are still displayed as art. However, this exhibition can also represent the future of museums where loans are issued for temporary exhibitions rather than continuing to support the acquisition of illicit objects.

Sphere: Related Content