A New Way Forward for U.S. Museums

The following article is published at the request of its author, Thomas Noble Howe.

There is currently exhibit of some 70 repatriated art objects in the Italian presidential palace, mostly from the Getty, Metropolitan and Boston Museums (“Nostoi, Capolavori ritrovati”, at the Quirinal Palace, Rome, 21 December-2 March, 2008, ).

It has a distinctly triumphal quality to it (not without some justification) but as in any Roman triumph, there are losers. Although I am primarily an archaeologist, the first impression was the loss of the great amount of work that it took those museums to gather funds, seek and assemble objects into parts of a coherent collection. But the second impression—the archaeologist speaking—was to see that around every object on display there is a penumbra of destruction: looted tombs, lost association with other objects, dating material, findspot and hence cultural context.

The many-year campaign of the Italian government to prevent looting of antiquities has produced many victories for archaeology, but the news still appears to be grim for U.S. museums. Toward the end of his book The Medici Conspiracy, on the recent history of the market in illicit antiquities and the attempts of the Italian government to stem it (2006), Peter Watson declares: “It is no longer possible to form a collection of classical antiquities by legitimate means.”

It is in fact possible, but it requires art museums and archaeology radically to rethink the nature of antiquities collection. Italian archaeology—and its partners—have already done a lot of that thinking.

Several of the museums which have surrendered antiquities to Italy (the Metropolitan, Boston) have received or been promised equivalent quality long term loans. But there is another path open to museums, including those who have no antiquities to surrender in exchange, and that path is to work with organizations which in some way study and protect Italian archaeological sites.

Our foundation, the Restoring Ancient Stabiae Foundation, is the first non-profit cultural foundation of its kind in Italy, and is well on its way to undertaking a huge task—excavating a major Italian archaeological site (the enormous ancient Rome seaside villas of Stabiae near Pompeii)—but in a way that has never been tried before in archaeology: as a permanent semi-public, semi-private foundation which will share in the actual long term management and conservation of the site. We are an Italian non-profit foundation with international board representation (including the University of Maryland). Large excavations are under way, buildings are being constructed, a 100-room international study institute is under our management, and a marine archaeology vessel is about to start research operations this summer.

And we have just concluded a touring exhibit of Roman frescoes, In Stabiano, Exploring the Ancient Seaside Villas of the Roman Elite, which opened at the Smithsonian in 2004. This was the first long-term loan of objects from Italy to the U.S. and its success was apparently instrumental in persuading the U.S. State Department in January 2006 to renew the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Italy which permits long term loans and forbids importing of unprovenanced antiquities. Other exhibits and tours are being planned.

Supportive collaboration in any way with a foundation like ours justifies a long term loan to a U.S. institution, and the amount of material in Italian museums and storerooms is enormous. U.S. museums curators’ attitudes are changing; I have heard some say that they feel that they don’t necessarily have to own the antiquities which they display.

If a foundation like ours can be the conduit for supporting Italian archaeological sites and a new way of building fine public antiquities collections in the U.S., Italians on the other hand need to support their own highly creative policies, and the people who developed them. Our initiatives were in fact created in large part by the now long serving Superintendent of Pompei, Prof. Pietro Giovanni Guzzo, who has quietly initiated a new generation of international work in Pompei, and who may or may not continue as superintendent of the new joint Superintendancy of Pompei and the Naples museum (where most of the early finds from Pompeii and Stabiae are housed). This foundation, a creation of Italians, Americans and other nationalities, was in fact created at the invitation of Prof. Guzzo, and his vision of the possibilities inherent in the general policies of the Cultural Ministry and the 2001/2006 MOU between the U.S. and Italy.

Italy is one of the richest countries in the world in cultural treasuries, but it is also one of most generous—and ingenious—in sharing them. If one wishes to share in enjoying Italian provenanced antiquities, it is still possible, as long as want also wants to share in the responsibility of maintaining them.

Thomas Noble Howe,
Coordinator General, Fondazione Restoring Ancient Stabiae
www.stabiae.org
Herman Brown Professor, Southwestern University

“United States Extends Agreement Protecting Italy’s Archaeological Materials Representing the Pre-classical, Classical and Imperial Roman Periods"

“The MOU has been especially helpful in enriching American cultural life through research, educational programs and loans between Italian and American institutions. Within the framework of the MOU, a number of loan initiatives promise to bring more Italian artifacts to America for longer terms. The United States is pleased that, pursuant to the MOU, Italy now permits international loans of objects of antiquity for up to four years. Since 2004, the highly successful In Stabiano: Exploring the Ancient Seaside Villas of the Roman Elite has been on a tour to nine American museums, which will end in 2008.” (Media Note, Cultural Properties Advisory Board, United States Department of State)(CREDIT: Plinio Lepri/Associated Press

Cyprus, coins and the American interest

The recent renewal of the U.S.-Cyprus bilateral agreement to restrict importation of certain categories of antiquities into the U.S. could have taken place with little fanfare. In fact, similar agreements the U.S. had previously signed with Bolivia (extended in 2006), Colombia (initiated in 2006) and Nicaragua (extended in 2005) were hardly mentioned in the general media. The U.S. extension of the agreement with Peru, in June of this year, went practically unnoticed. One month later, however, the agreement with Cyprus was another story. Days after the announcement, the New York Times ran an article about it, and attacks on State Department personnel (responsible for administering bilateral agreements) appeared on the Internet. Among the heated polemics was the assertion that agreeing with Cyprus--a tiny country compared to the U.S.--does not serve the interests of the American public.

So what makes the Cyprus agreement so contentious? The inclusion of coins. For the first time, the U.S. will restrict the importation of specific ancient coins with Cyprus mint marks, concluding that “Coins constitute an inseparable part of the archaeological record of the island, and, like other archaeological objects, they are vulnerable to pillage and illicit export.” (See Federal Register)

Perhaps it is time we discuss the importance of ancient coins. Are they important beyond the money they fetch on the market? Since coin collecting is a popular hobby, is there a responsible way to collect without contributing to the destruction of the archaeological record? How do they compare to other ancient artifacts such as vases or statues? What can coins tell us aside from the date stamped on them? Should those of us who don’t collect coins care ... and why?

The U.S. joined the international Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO 1970) more than two decades ago and passed implementing legislation that provides the mechanism by which bilateral agreements with other countries also party to the Convention are considered.

As citizens, we are expected to follow the law, and we expect our governments to honor treaties and agreements with other sovereign nations. We understand that not every single one of these laws will serve the interests of every single individual.

Is it time to question whether bilateral agreements truly serve American interests? Clearly not. It is instead time to accept the reality that unbridled destruction will no longer be ignored to serve the interest of a few.