[MSN] A moment of truth for all in the antiquities field

[Museum Security Network Mailinglist]

A moment of truth for all in the antiquities field
By Anna Somers Cocks | Posted 12 June 2006 

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/

It is a moment of truth in the field of antiquities. The documentary
evidence discovered by the Italian authorities in the Giacomo Medici
antiquities smuggling affair and now coming out in the trial of the former
curator of antiquities at the J. Paul Getty Museum, Marion True, has made
museum professionals and collectors come face to face with the criminality
of parts-large parts-of the trade in antiquities. The prospect of being
arraigned and facing the humiliation of a criminal trial is also
concentrating the minds of curators and directors more accustomed to being
considered pillars of enlightened society. 

No longer should museums be able to buy antiquities or accept them as a gift
while turning a blind eye to the question of where they come from. Nor will
it be credible for museums to go through the legal farce practised by the
Getty and other US museums in the past of asking the authorities in possible
source countries whether they knew that a potential purchase had been
illicitly excavated or exported, and then acquiring the item when the answer
was in the negative. The museums have been forced to recognise that, by
their very nature, illicitly excavated or exported items have a concealed
history, so of course the authorities know little or nothing about them. 

Philippe de Montebello, the director of the Metropolitan Museum in New York,
who in the wake of the accusations against Marion True has voluntarily
decided to give back 21 archaeological items to the Italian government,
thereby avoiding a potentially embarrassing situation with political skill,
still seems to be resisting a change of heart, however. At the Association
of Art Museum Directors' (AAMD) symposium on 4 May to discuss this key
moment for the future policy of US museums (see p6), he defended the
acquisition of unprovenanced antiquities on the grounds that this preserved
them for mankind. He has also been playing on US nationalist sentiment by
suggesting to The New York Times that the US is being picked on unfairly by
the source countries. This is disingenuous on his part; he cannot be unaware
that nearly all European museums have developed a policy of acquiring only
provenanced items since the 1970 Unesco Convention on cultural property. 

This is the moment for those few remaining museums who do not respect this
convention to join the majority in recognising the importance of provenance
and refusing to connive, however indirectly, in the breaking of laws in the
source countries. What are museums, after all, if not an expression of
civilised values in society, and they should no more think of acquiring
illicitly traded goods than running their computers on pirated software. But
this could also be the moment for an even more fundamental change to take
place, one that in the long run would do far more to protect the
archaeological heritage of the world than the mere cessation of collecting
by a handful of museums. 

In a new climate of respect for the rule of law on the part of museums, the
source countries might on their side consider the truth of their current
situation. The reality is that, despite tough protective legislation, even
involving the death penalty in some countries, the world's buried history is
being lost at a faster rate than ever before, partly through organised
looting, as with the tombaroli in Italy, but much more through economic
development. Dams, motorways, airports and housing developments all wipe out
the past unless there is a huge, and rapid effort on the part of the
archaeological services to explore the areas. Everybody knows that there is
not enough money for this in any of the source countries, even if there were
enough archaeologists. 

The view of this newspaper has always been that the fairest and most
realistic solution to this problem is for governments to allow a licit
market to exist for selected items found in excavated sites (there is
absolutely no need for the museums of Italy, for example, to add dozens more
unexceptional Etruscan pots of known types to their stores once the sites
have been carefully recorded; in so many cases, it is the information
yielded by a properly excavated find site that is more precious than the
artefacts). This would start a virtuous spiral: the money raised by these
sales would go towards rewarding citizens who reported chance finds and
would help finance further excavations. The authorised goods would find a
more ready market than unauthorised goods, thereby reducing the black
market, and collectors and museums of the world would once more be able to
buy with a clear conscience, thereby enlarging the understanding of the
cultures that had produced these artefacts. 

Speaking as the director of a museum that since the 70s has increasingly
adopted the policy of only buying items with a provenance dating back beyond
1970 (and since 1998 has made it official policy), Neil MacGregor of the
British Museum explained the advantages of such a system at the AAMD
symposium. 

It would be encouraging if the main European source countries, Greece, Italy
and Spain, would reconsider their traditionally defensive positions and meet
to take a new look at the potential benefits to their countries and world
civilisation of reforming their antiquities laws-this time with the rich
museums of the world prepared to assist in fraternal, law-abiding
collaboration. 

The writer is the General Editorial Director of The Art Newspaper