NYT: Museums Under Fire on Ancient Artifacts

[DeepModem Mom]

Museums Under Fire on Ancient Artifacts
By HUGH EAKIN
Published: November 17, 2005


Three years ago, directors of some of the world's top museums, meeting in Munich, commiserated over a major annoyance: the growing demands from countries like Greece and Italy that they return ancient artifacts.

What emerged from the meeting was a defiant statement defending their collecting practices. Signed by the directors of 18 museums - from the Louvre to the Hermitage in Russia to the Metropolitan Museum of Art to the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles - the document argued that encyclopedic museums have a special mission as treasure houses of world culture, and that today's ethical standards cannot be applied to yesterday's acquisitions.

That philosophy is now under siege as never before. In Rome, a former Getty curator sat tensely and quietly yesterday as her trial began on criminal charges of conspiring to import illegally excavated antiquities for the museum. (Page B8.) On Tuesday, Philippe de Montebello, the longtime director of the Met, is to meet in Rome with a lawyer for the Italian Culture Ministry to discuss works in the museum's collection that the Italians say were looted. Italy is insisting that several other American museums account for dozens of ancient artworks that made their way into their collections....

***

Behind this shift, museum directors, curators and lawyers say, are broad changes in the way source countries are pursuing and enforcing cultural property claims - and the public's perception of those claims. Caught in the cross hairs, museums face pressure to clean up their act and embrace rigorous standards for future acquisitions - and to return prized works acquired in past decades....

***

"One of the key questions is the internationalist versus the nationalist perspective," said (Neil) MacGregor of the British Museum. "There is a very real tension between the belief that great culture is a shared inheritance of everybody and the view that it is the particular inheritance of one modern political entity."...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/arts/design/17anti.html?8hpib

[NashVegas]

1. All Gonna Be Destroyed, Anyway

When the fundies (of every stripe) rise up, they aren't going to want artifacts of previous gods in public view.

[anotherdrew]

7. wouldn't be the first time

[trotsky]

2. If the goal is to have as many people as possible see these things,

and appreciate the ancient cultures of Greece and Italy, wouldn't it make sense to have a few of them spread around the world? Not many people can afford a trip to Italy to view these treasures.

How about rotating items between Italy and other locations?

[shenmue]

3. Good plan

Hope they don't take them all back; then fewer people will ever get to see them.

[KittyWampus]

4. How About Rome Pay Restitution For All It Looted During The Roman Empire?

We could have lots of fun going back in time trying to figure out who originally has claims to this, that and the other things.

[Nevernose]

5. It's about money for the owning museum

People go to Italy/Greece/Egypt and spend a lot of money to see these things. Those who can't actually go to see these things pay ten-twenty bucks to see a traveling display hosted at a guest museum.

"Treasures of Czarist Crimea" or whatever the heck it is they're displaying isn't on loan to that museum in Ft. Worth, it's on lease.

[K-W]

6. Artifacts that can stand to be toured often are.

I think in this case the internationalist argument is just a smoke screen to defend the unfair accumulation of artifacts by powerful institutions in wealthy nations.

Italy would have every reason to want to tour artifacts that can withstand it, but they should control thier own artifacts. Without a true international system that can garuntee fair treatment of artifacts, localizing them is the most just option.

[rmgarrette64]

9. Who is Italy?

This is, in the end, the biggest problem I see with this line of argument. Italy isn't a person. They don't have possession or ownership of these items.

An item that was made in the Roman Empire was not made by an Italian citizen, but by a Roman. Why then, would modern Italy have a claim on this item? Even during the Renaissance, Italy was divided into city-states, with no clear provenance reaching to the modern state. I have a general dislike for this idea of a state claiming anything made within its borders, at any time in history, as its property.

This dislike was crystalized by China's policies, that claim any item made, even within the last 20 years, as its exclusive property. Some of these laws are really bizarre, and generally poor ideas.

Oh, and on a selfish note, I live 20 miles from the Getty Museum, and love going up there to look at their collections. So, yeah, there's some personal interest here ;-)

R. Garrett

[K-W]

12. Italy has a better claim than anyone else.

This is, in the end, the biggest problem I see with this line of argument.

I will point out that the line of argument you proceed to counter is not a line of argument that is made in my post. I did not argue that Italy deserved artifacts because they are Italy's property.

Italy isn't a person. They don't have possession or ownership of these items. An item that was made in the Roman Empire was not made by an Italian citizen, but by a Roman. Why then, would modern Italy have a claim on this item?

Because the capital of modern Italy is the city of Rome inhabited by Romans who have a clear historical interest in things produced by Romans.

Even during the Renaissance, Italy was divided into city-states, with no clear provenance reaching to the modern state. I have a general dislike for this idea of a state claiming anything made within its borders, at any time in history, as its property.

Thats fine, but it is the best option available. Allowing collectors to hoard the worlds historical treasures is hardly more just.

Oh, and on a selfish note, I live 20 miles from the Getty Museum, and love going up there to look at their collections. So, yeah, there's some personal interest here ;-)

Thank you for admitting that.


And to clarify, my argument is not based on any concept of ownership. It is based on the fact that there exists no system by which artifacts could truely be shared internationally, therefore the idea of taking a global communal approach to artifacts is, at this point a pipe dream. Allowing collectors to hoarde artifacts under the guise of internationalism is not OK because ideally internationalism is the best option.

Until there exists true international political and economic structures that could support a global-communal approach to artifacts, the most just way to distribute them is locally, this will at least ensure artifacts are not hoarded in centers of wealth and power.

[anotherdrew]

8. all eggs in one basket is a bad idea

period, end of discussion. We need to do more disaster proofing of our institutions anyway, especially the smithsonian and other DC museums and libraries

[Mind_your_head]

11. Yep, unless of course, eradication of history is a goal

it's a very very bad idea!

See how well it worked out for the "looters" in Iraq to quickly steal and/or destroy the best items of the Iraq National Museum
in Baghdad in April 2003? Everything was all gathered in pretty much one place....coupla days and the looters had it all gone/destroyed.

[Angry Girl]

13. Revealed: The real story behind the great Iraq Museum thefts

How the US army's Indiana Jones went after Baghdad's raiders of the antiquities
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x172504

Original story at
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article326745.ece

but you can only read about a paragraph now. But more of the article here:
http://www.ezilon.com/information/article_13705.shtml

[Mind_your_head]

14. Interesting looking article(s)

(especially the last one).

I'm going to have to read them later tonight though. Thanks for posting this.

[cantstandbush]

10. Everything is a f***ing racket! n/t