[MSN] 'Illicit antiquities': what are the issues? (David Gill: Discussion of the archaeological ethics surrounding the collecting of antiquities.)

[Museum Security Network Mailing list]

Friday, August 3, 2007
'Illicit antiquities': what are the issues?

http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2007/08/illicit-antiquities-what-are-issu
es.html
 
Sir John Boardman makes a useful point when he notes, 'objects cannot be
"tainted" or "illicit", and could only be so described by scholars who do
not understand them, or legislators' (in Who Owns Objects? [2006], 44 [for
details of review]). I would insert 'genuine' before 'objects' as forgeries
can corrupt the corpus of knowledge. 

Objects are removed from their archaeological contexts by scientific means
(excavation), chance, erosion or illicit means. Some involved in the debate
tend to place all antiquities emerging on the market in the same group. Our
research has stressed the date of surfacing. Has the object been known since
excavation? When is the first recorded mention or (even better) publication?
These are not irrelevant issues. The Getty return has shown that 'histories'
were being assigned to objects which appear to be fresh out of the ground.

So what are the contentious groups of archaeological objects?

1. High profile objects that were removed from their countries some time ago
Should high profile objects which were removed from their findspots before
(say) 1850 remain in their (usually western) museums? Should the Parthenon
marbles be displayed in London or in a purpose-built museum within sight of
the Athenian akropolis? Should the Rosetta stone, a key text for Egyptology,
be in London or Cairo?

These are complex issues as the three volume UK House of Commons select
committee report demonstrated. [For commentary.] 

I suspect these issues will not be resolved by legal arguments but by common
sense and goodwill.

These historic cases are different to modern instances of looting from
archaeological sites. Take the Parthenon marbles. We know where the
sculptures were displayed. We know the order in which they were displayed.
And thanks to the surviving accounts we can almost date their work to the
year.

Contrast recently surfaced objects. Do even known the country in which they
were found?

2. Notorious acts of looting prior to the 1970 UNESCO convention
This has been a major issue in recent weeks. Should the Fano athlete at
present in the J. Paul Getty Museum return to Italy? It appears to have been
known well before the 1970 Convention. Is there a case for it to return? The
debate looks set to continue over the next few months and years.

What about the Keros haul - rather than 'hoard' - from the Greek Cycladic
islands? [For recent discussion.] Hundreds of fragments of Early Cycladic
marble figures appear to have been removed from the site. What was their
purpose? Were the fragments broken on site in the Early Bronze Age? What was
going on? Several pieces from the 'haul' were exhibited in the Katonah
Museum of Art exhibition Ancient Art of the Cyclades (October 1 - December
31, 2006). Should these fragments now residing in North American collections
be returned to Greece?

3. Surfacings after 1970
Thousands of antiquities surface each year on the market. Few are provided
with histories. Are we really expected to accept that they have been lurking
in the attic? (Though we can all probably think of one or two cases where
this has happened.)

But we have read The Medici Conspiracy, we have seen recently opened tombs
... and we can draw our own conclusions.

Perhaps it is important to note that objects looted from archaeological
sites will not be on The Art Loss Register.

4. Objects stolen from museums and archaeological stores