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

It’s All the Same: the Looting of ‘High Art’ vs. the Looting of the Minor Arts

When ancient objects are studied from recorded contexts, usually through scientific excavation, they are invaluable historical sources. In archaeological excavations, all classes of objects are systematically recorded and studied by specialists. Archaeology has evolved from its origins in treasure-hunting and the indiscriminate antiquarian accumulation of objects into a scientific discipline, which treats each object as an historical source, the usefulness of which often revolves around the find’s context. Despite archaeology’s place as an academic discipline, which makes little aesthetic distinction between the ability of different archaeological objects to inform us about ancient society, media coverage of looting activities, detrimental to archaeology, frequently revolve around ‘high art’ objects – large statues, signed Greek vases, etc.(1) News stories devoted to cultural property issues frequently reference some unique statue or vase returning from X or Y museum to its home-country or the theft of ‘high art’ objects from museums or archaeological sites. It is clear, however, that the majority of trafficking in illicitly excavated and exported antiquities revolves not around these ‘monumental’ aesthetic objects, but the minor arts: coins, brooches, buckles, small ceramic and metal vessels, glass, oil lamps, Byzantine crosses, etc. Objects such as these are easily available on the Internet and sold in large numbers on eBay (all sites), VCoins, and through other websites and auction houses. Curiously, advocacy efforts to educate the public about looting regarding these classes of objects are increasingly opposed by lobbies and special interest groups that cater to a dealer interest. Is there a difference between the trade in unprovenanced examples of ‘high art’ and that in unprovenanced examples of the minor arts?

According to recent news articles, five or six smugglers in Cyprus were arrested and their cache of antiquities, which they had allegedly intended to export illegally, was seized (for two versions of the news article see the International Herald Tribune and the Cyprus Mail). David Gill has already commented on this report in “Coins and Cyprus: action on the ground.” The first article in IHT stated: “The antiquities, confiscated in the southern town of Limassol, include gold leaves and rings, two mediaeval gold coins and a bronze cross.” It continued: “Police said the suspects were trying to sell the finds for €280,000 ($395,000).” If the smugglers were trying to sell the artifacts for such a sum, we can be confident that a complete inventory of the cache was not supplied. The CM article provides a bit more detail:

“Around 100 items were found at the Kato Polemidia house, ranging from the Paleolithic to the Byzantine period. Confiscated items include hundreds of gold coins, bronze coins, statues, gold, bronze and metal antique jewelry, bronze seals, sheets of gold and albums with pictures of archaeological finds. Approximately 40 more items were confiscated from the Ypsonas garage. An officer of the Antiquities Department is currently assessing the value of the finds. ‘The confiscated items are of great archaeological value: they are a treasure. Only part of this collection would have been sold for 280,000 euro,’ said Latropoulos. The sale would have occurred yesterday morning, but was prevented by the police raids and arrests.”

Much of this material is ‘common’ on the market; nevertheless, it is clear that such materials come from archaeological sites. Some have argued that fresh supplies of ancient coins that reach the market in response to widespread collector and dealer demand only come from empty fields, devoid of any associated archaeological remains. However, this is a great misconception, which I rebutted, citing published records of the systematic looting of archaeological sites for coins and other metal objects, in the SAFE feature: “Why Coins Matter.” Clearly, in the Cyprus case, the other ‘minor art’ objects recovered are the sort that come only from historical sites or ancient tombs.

In 2006, Greek authorities raided a villa on the island of Schinoussa occupied by the sister of Christos Mihailidis, former partner of London-based antiquities dealer Robyn Symes, whom Italian and Greek authorities suspect of being a major antiquities smuggler. The report stated: “The hundreds of relics discovered so far in and around the Papadimitriou villa include temple parts, statues and busts, ceramic vessels, coins and Byzantine-era icons.” Another article from the New York Times states: "Evidence retrieved in the raid indicated that many of the items had been bought at Christie's or Sotheby's between 2001 and 2005, although none had been declared to the Greek authorities before entering the country, as required by law." Clearly, these smugglers made no distinction between trading in parts of a temple and selling coins – both are profitable on the market.

In 2005 in Egypt, one smuggling ring is known to have illegally exported around 57,000 objects from the country. These individuals dealt in all classes of objects; the article states:

“Officials estimated the smuggling gang exported some 57,000 pieces worth about $55m, including human and animal mummies, coins, statues and wooden sarcophagi. The authorities intercepted some of the antiquities at Cairo airport, but others were smuggled all over the world, including some that were found in Australia for sale on the internet. They have been returned to Egypt.”

It is curious that some (whose professions are outside of archaeology and field archaeology) have tried to argue a special case that coins should not be considered archaeologically significant objects, despite the fact they come from the same places as other objects: historically significant sites with associated archaeological remains (see “Why Coins Matter”). Are not these caches further evidence that looters are not just detecting in empty fields for coins but are also systematically looting tombs and other archaeological and historical sites for material, taking everything that will fetch money on the market?

In the SAFE feature, I commented on the significant problem of looting in Balkan countries, which supplies much of the fresh material on the coin market. Yesterday, I read an article, on the MSN list, discussing the problem of looting in Romania and efforts to recover looted material. Apparently, ‘minor objects’ such as coins and jewelry are not exempt from being repatriated when their illicit export can be traced:

“Selon une statistique de l’IGP, en 2006, environ 17 000 biens archéologiques
étaient recherchés hors des frontières de Roumanie, la plupart étant des
pièces de monnaies : des pièces romaines en argent (12 000 pièces), des
pièces d’or de Chersonèse taurique (2 440 pièces) et des monnaies d’or de
Lysimarque (2 700 pièces).”

And for our readers who do not read French, here is my rough translation:

“According to statistics of the IGP [L’Inspection général de la Police roumaine], in 2006, around 17,000 archaeological goods were recovered from outside the borders of Romania, most were coins: Roman silver coins (12,000 pieces), gold coins from Tauric Chersonese [essentially the Crimea] (2,440 pieces) and gold coins of Lysimachos (2,700 pieces).”

The well-known case of the dekadrachm hoard, illicitly excavated and exported from Turkey, illustrates that foreign governments have a legal basis to sue for their return, when they can track the sale of illicitly excavated and exported material.

The Medici Conspiracy tells the story of Giacomo Medici’s distribution and exportation of illicitly excavated antiquities (primarily ‘high art’ objects) and how authorities used his own records to track down the loot. Although ‘high art’ gets more press and museums with indiscriminate acquisition policies frequently pay the price, the minor arts of antiquity are equally important to our knowledge of past societies - especially when they can be studied from recorded excavated contexts – and they are, and have been, liable to litigation should their illicit sale be traced.

As the market in ‘minor antiquities’ flourishes and continues to grow, there can be no doubt we will likely witness future court battles involving the plunder of the minor arts. Should the records of some smuggler or some unscrupulous dealer be seized by law enforcement in the future, the sale of some coins and other small objects could potentially be traced and be subject to possible litigation. Unfortunately, an unsuspecting collector may well pay the financial price. There is a multitude of evidence demonstrating that such objects are entering the market in very large quantities, supplied by organized rings of smugglers and looters. Is it enough that a dealer can say “I acquired this legally, in good faith, but I can’t tell you anything about the previous owner or where I got it – I have to protect my sources!” Should this be enough to assure the collector that the object was not recently looted? Is this due diligence? (for due diligence see: David Gill’s “Cultural Property Advice” and also keyword ‘due diligence).’

(1.) Ironically, many contemporary collectors and art galleries regard Greek painted vases as ‘high art’ objects, but there is a scholarly debate concerning how highly Greek painted vases were regarded by the Greeks themselves. In general, see: Vickers, M. and D. Gill. 1994. Artful Crafts: Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery. (Oxford); and also: Vickers, M. 1985. "Artful Crafts: the Influence of Metalwork on Athenian Painted Pottery," Journal of Hellenic Studies 15; Vickers, M., O. Impey, and J. Allan. 1986. Silver to Ceramic. (Oxford); Vickers, M. 1986. "Silver, Copper and Ceramics in Ancient Athens," in M. Vickers (ed.) Pots and Pans (Oxford). These works, and others, suggest that Greek painted vases imitated more valuable gold, silver, and other metal vessels, which would have been more routinely used by aristocratic classes and that painted vases were a more economical substitute.

Yale to Return Machu Picchu Artifacts to Peru

Here's the BBC's coverage of the major repatriation effort between Yale University and Peru: the return of thousands of artifacts taken from the site of Machu Picchu by Yale professor Hiram Bingham nearly a century ago. I believe this a truly momentous event in the world of cultural heritage repatriation, for it involves both one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world, and one of the most-visited and most-loved archaeological (and now archaeological-tourist) sites in the world. Hopefully, Yale's clout will inspire other major Western institutions holding objects of questionable provenience to follow suit.

The details of this agreement show that repatriation can be mutually beneficial for both the home nation and the outside institutions where these objects often end up; there will be a scholarly exchange between Yale-based American and Peruvian academics, as well as a traveling exhibit of the pieces to bring the pieces to an even wider audience than they have encountered by being at the school.

Some might say that keeping objects such as these in American and European museums is more beneficial than sending them home, because it inspires Westerners who see them on display to want to visit the places where they originally came from. In this case, given that Machu Picchu is one of the most famous ancient sites in the world, and has such a strong hold in popular imagination, I can't imagine that many people need the prompting of a few artifacts in a museum to want to go to Peru and see it for themselves!

Marble sculptures going home

Here is today's New York Times article on two sculptural heads being returned to Sicily. Like the famous set of silver pieces that are in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, these heads are from the Morgantina site, the remains of an ancient Greek colony in Sicily:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/arts/design/01rest.html?ref=todayspaper

It's important to point out that these two pieces are not only going back to their place of origin, they are going into a museum there where they will be looked after. It's not only American or British museums can properly care for and display archaeological treasures.

Repatriation and loss of context

Should we celebrate when archaeological objects are returned to their countries of origin?

No ... and yes.

No, because the damage has already been done. The archaeological contexts cannot be reconstructed. The scientific information held in the ground for thousands of years has gone for good. Our cultural heritage has been destroyed.

Yes, because returning objects send out a clear signal to museums (and private collectors) that they should not be acquiring objects that have no recorded "history". For lack of "history" can so often indicate recently surfaced objects that have been torn from their resting place.