Christie’s is being criticized for leaving on the auction block three items which have been alleged by archaeologists and an Italian prosecutor to have originated from the famous and illicit antiquities trader, Giacomo Medici. Italy, however, has not submitted a formal request for repatriation of the objects to the U.S. government or even a title claim to Christie’s.
Among the objects in question are a 2nd century AD Roman marble torso, a 4th century BC Apulian drinking cup, and a 3rd century BC Greek terracotta figure of a goddess. The objects do not have provenance which would clear them of potentially being from the Medici “collections.” They’re scheduled to be auctioned on June 10th, and Christie’s refuses to pull the auctions without submission of a title claim.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Christie’s is being lambasted as immoral and unethical by David Gill and a prosecutor from Rome. And the objects have insufficient provenance to show they were exported prior to 1970 — before the UNESCO Convention would have prohibited their export. Rumor has it that they are pictured in the photographs seized from notorious illicit antiquities trader Giacomo Medici’s warehouse. So the fault lies with Christie’s and the private collectors who have listed the objects, right?
William G. Pearlstein, a New York based antiquities lawyer, doesn’t think so. In fact, he has rather strong sentiments to the contrary. He railed against Italy in recent emails as follows:
I note
d at the November hearing of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee on the interim review of the Italian MOU that Italy should be required to publish the Medici archives so that US market participants could protect themselves, police the market and diligence their purchases…
I’ve been over this ground before… in the matter of an Egyptian duck that was stolen from a government warehouse, never reported (perhaps never inventoried) and then seized when it came up on at auction 25 years later–after being consigned by a foreign purchase who took good title under local law.
At some point, sanity has to prevail and foreign governments should be penalized for incompetence or disingenuous actions that prejudice American purchasers acting in good faith. After all, why should foreign sovereign claimants be in a better position legally because US enforcement agencies are doing their bidding than a holocaust claimant pursuing a civil claim?
What the Italians are doing is outrageous. They are deliberately withholding the Medici files from the public, allowing hot pieces to remain in circulation and then playing up every seizure for maximum publicity value. They continue to play the role of victim when actually they have became cynical predators on American institutions that want nothing more than to do the right thing.
The demand for “transparency” as to inventory and collections has to work both ways. Claimants have to operate in a manner that allows market participants to police the integrity of their collections and held accountable for their failure to do so; i.e., laches. What’s needed is an on-line registery whereby transparancy is rewarded with repose/quiet title after a reasonable claim period, claims are evaluated fairly and bad faith claims are penalized.
Shared with permission of Pearlstein.
So what do you think? Is it fair for source nations to cry for transparency on one hand and then withhold information that could allow collectors and dealers to adequately assess the legitimacy of antiquities already on the market? Does Italy deserve what they get for refusing to publish the photographs seized from the Medici warehouse?
Read the Wall Street Journal article: Three auction items vexes Christie’s.
Read Why Can’t the Public see the Medici Polaroids on the Illicit Cultural Property Blog.
Wayne G. Sayles
June 6, 2010
Hello Kimberly;
I personally agree with Mr. Pearlstein, and I find it outrageous that David Gill purportedly has access to some or all of the Medici photos when those who are at risk of buying the objects cannot avoid entanglement. I’m not a lawyer, but to me this has essentially the same effect as entrapment — not to mention a display of really bad faith on the part of market critics.
Regards,
Wayne G. Sayles
Mark Durney
June 8, 2010
Kimberly,
A thought-provoking piece here. I debated similar issues a week or two ago at ATC. Having spoken with the ALR and a few others it’s clear that not all the objects depicted in the photographs have been confidently and legally identified as looted. Pearlstein’s arguments are certainly valid; however, do American institutions “want nothing more than to do the right thing.” One might argue that the first right thing they could do is fill the loopholes left in the AAMD’s 2008 acquisition guidelines. The Portland Art Museum was first to post an object on the registry created by the 2008 guidelines. The Ganesha Stele originates from India/modern Bangladesh. Seemingly, the AAMD’s registry fulfills PAM’s requirements for adverse possession i.e. open and notorious use of the property, etc. Surprisingly, only 7% of India’s population uses the internet and less than 1% of Bangladesh’s. Back to the Dossier, having worked in the UK’s DCMS I was shocked by the lack of communication that occurred between governments involved in the Medici objects that were expected to go on sale. Accordingly, vehemently arguing in the press for the restitution of objects is not the wrong approach, rather it must work in concert with governmental cooperation.
MD
Kimberly Alderman
June 8, 2010
I don’t think Pearlstein has said that all American collectors/institutions want to do the right thing, but for those that do, it’d be nice if they had the tools necessary to do so. Arguments for transparency do seem disingenuous from who refuse to be transparent themselves. Even many antiquities academics don’t publish their research in a way that would seem consistent with arguing that lost context is a disaster.
If there is no question that the objects are part of the Medici “collection,” it seems that Christie’s is saying all Italy has to do is submit a title claim and they will halt the auction. That doesn’t seem unreasonable if the documentation which Gill and Italy are privy to, but the rest of us aren’t, actually exists. Does anyone know why Italy has not submitted a title claim as of yet?
Kim Alderman
November 15, 2010
Mark,
Thank you for the comment. I think you are probably right that American institutions “want nothing more than to do the right thing” is probably an, uh, overstatement. As to publicizing acquisitions, etc., is there a better way than via the internet, even given those low rates of use?
Sorry for the delayed reply.
Kim