I had occasion to reread an article in The New York Times outlining the "Italian Agreement" and was reminded of something that surprised me at the time: part of the agreement includes the Met beginning excavations in Italy. From the NY Times, Feb. 22, 2006 (Arts section, "Italy and U.S. Sign Antiquities Accord"):
The agreement also allows the Met to conduct authorized excavations at its own expense in Italy, the fruits of which would be lent to the Met "for the time necessary for their study and restoration."
Mr. de Montebello said that because the museum's antiquities department was busypreparing for a major reorganization of its Greek and Roman collections, it had not decided which digs it would participate in.
Now that the reorganization of the Greek and Roman galleries is over, one wonders if this is in the works. And, for the Met, certainly partage would be a nicer arrangement than a long-term loan for study and restoration, as was the case with their Egyptian excavations at the beginning of the 20th century. Sphere: Related Content
Posts
2 comments:
But what you are describing is not partage, it is a "loan" which is essentially a way for Italy to get free restoration. ("...necessary for their study and restoration.")
I think that partage is ideal. It provides the funds, manpower and expertise to get work done in the field and address at-risk sites while providing permanant material for the museum or institution that financed the work to display and/or trade or loan out to other institutions. Ideally, agreements can be put into place that extend loan priviledges to the sponsoring institution in the source country so that they can "borrow" whatever items leave the country. In addition, I would take it a step further and say that whatever material will never be displayed and has been studied should be sold on the open market to fund further research and field work.
Partage is not an ideal situation and comes from "Western" desire for ownership of artifacts, as does Mr. De La Fe's desire for archaeological material to be sold on an open market. This creates a possibility of objects disappearing into the coffers of wealthy collectors. If it is in the storage room of a site museum, at least academics would have an opportunity to research the items for publishing and possible requests for loans for exhibitions. Besides, it is the decision of these museums and cultural ministries on whether or not they want to sell their collections.
I would agree with Senta that the Met should start organizing an excavation in Italy. This could include the possibility of hiring archaeologists who need jobs and organizing a future Met exhibition focused on the project.
Post a Comment