Earlier this week I posted some comments from Attorney William Pearlstein in reference to Italy’s refusal to release the photographs seized from illicit antiquities trader Giacomo Medici (see “Is Italy ‘Asking For It’ By Refusing to Release the Medici Photographs?“). Pearlstein argues that Italy should release the photographs so that collectors can perform due diligence to check to see if an item they wish to purchase was illegally excavated. While the issue has been previously discussed, the sharpness of Pearlstein’s comments caused some interesting reactions (see David Gill’s “Christie’s, the Medici Dossier and William G. Pearlstein”, Paul Barford’s “More Conspiracy Theory: Gill and the Medici Files” responding to comments on Gill’s post, and Derek Fincham’s well-tempered “More Reactions to the Medici Dossier”.)
I made note of the intensity of the cultural property debates in Ethical Issues in Cultural Property Law Pertaining to Indigenous Peoples, but the real problem in the debate is not substantive. Instead, it is that the parties are talking at each other, and from different perspectives.
Years ago someone gave me the very good advice that if someone comes to you with an emotional concern, in order to assuage them, you have to give them an emotional response. Same thing for logical problems. An example is that if a woman goes to her husband and says, “I feel like you don’t find me attractive anymore,” and his response is, “But you have no reason to feel that way,” then he has not addressed the emotionally component of her complaint, only the rational component, and she will be left unsatisfied.
With this in mind, it is my opinion that the dissatisfaction expressed in Paul Barford’s and David Gill’s responses to Pearlstein’s comments are a result of the fact that Pearlstein is speaking from a legal perspective, while Barford and Gill are purportedly speaking from a moral and/or ethical perspective. Gill had said that Christie’s should pull the auctions that he asserts are in the Medici polaroids, and quite plainly said it was the “ethical” thing to do.
In The Ethical Trade in Cultural Property: Ethics and Law in the Antiquity Auction Industry, I argued for a stronger concentration on ethics in the auction industry. I did so, however, by emphasizing the potential capitalistic benefit of such a focus. The simple fact is that in a capitalistic system, it is unreasonable to expect a business to cater to highly variable moral values. If you want the law changed, go to the legislature. If you want a business to change their practices, make it economically viable for them to do so. Accusations of immorality have historically had little effect on legal business practices.
If the two “camps” have any actual desire for meaningful discourse, they’ll have to engage in honest negotiation tactics, keeping in mind that legal concerns cannot be addressed with emotional arguments, and that the reverse is also true. To pepper what is supposed to be a legitimate argument with personal attacks and tirades can undermine the legitimacy of the entire argument.
I am reminded of one of my very first posts on this blog, “Radical Archaeologists as Nazis and Goose-Stepping.” While apparently not much has changed since November of 2008, perhaps it should.
[EDITS: Per the request of Paul Barford and to avoid confusion for non-lawyers, I changed “repatriation debates” to “cultural property debates,” but if Italy had in fact filed the appropriate diplomatic request for return of the objects on auction at Christie’s, it would have been one for repatriation. Also per Paul’s request, I clarified that his responses pertained to comments on Gill’s post, not directly to Pearlstein’s remarks.]
David Gill
June 10, 2010
Kimberly
Were the images of the three pieces from the Medici Dossier the same as the three lots? (i.e. the youth with cockerel; the Apulian rhyton; the Canosan terracotta) Why did Bonham’s (London) withdraw a similar piece in April this year? Is it because staff at Bonham’s want to act in an ethical way? Why did Christie’s proceed with the sale of these three lots? Why did the Christie’s catalogue initially fail to draw attention to the fact that one of the pieces (the youth with cockerel) had surfaced at a Sotheby’s (London) auction?
This sale needs to be seen in a wider context. Why was a Corinthian krater seized from Christie’s in June 2009 just prior to the sale? Why were two pieces (an Attic pelike and an Apulian situla) that passed through the June 2009 sale later seized and described by a spokesperson for Christie’s as “stolen”?
It would be interesting to read your responses to these questions.
Best wishes
David
Kimberly Alderman
June 10, 2010
David,
Thank you for your questions. I have answered them in turn.
I would need to be linked to the three Medici photos in question in order to state whether the Christie’s auctions are the same as the objects in those photos. So far, no one’s shown the photos that supposedly picture the objects, as far as I’ve seen and heard.
If Bonham’s withdrew a similar piece, it was likely because that particular piece was illegally excavated or exported.
Christie’s proceeded with the sale of these three lots because Italy did not either submit a title claim or initiate diplomatic procedures to recover the items. Presumably if Italy had documentary evidence showing that the items were illegally excavated or exported, they would have done so. The fact that they didn’t coupled with Italy’s lack of hesitation to do so when there is such support for a claim indicates to me that no such evidence exists.
I do not work at Christie’s nor have I seen any statements regarding the cockerel, so I really can’t say whether the Sotheby’s auction was a negligent or intentional omission.
If a Corinthian krater was seized from Christie’s in June 2009, it was likely because diplomatic procedures were initiated pursuant to a valid bilateral treaty, and that there was documentary evidence that the item was illegally excavated, exported, or stolen. If the two pieces that went through the June 2009 sale were described as stolen by Christie’s, I can only assume that it was because they were stolen at some point in their history.
Thank you for your comments and take care.
Kimberly
Wayne G. Sayles
June 10, 2010
Kimberly;
Your point is well taken. I was led about a year ago, through the wisdom of a friend, to this realization concerning emotional responses to rational questions and vice-versa. As a result, I stopped responding directly to [TWO NAMED] blogs and have excised any previous comments about them from my own blog. Nevertheless, the tirades continue and the rhetoric is unchanged. So, I suppose one might conclude that it was not my “inflammatory” posts that made dialogue untenable. Meanwhile, I have actually had some very productive discussions with rational archaeologists. You’re right, it helps to speak the same language. If we could only figure out what language the State Department speaks, the world might once again become a happy place 🙂
Kimberly Alderman
June 10, 2010
Wayne,
I removed the names of the two gentlemen you referred to, in order to avoid any kind of shit-slinging contest here on the CPAL Blog. If you’d rather I remove the post, I can, but I’d otherwise assume this is fine.
I see your point about the State Department. I think “they” speak a rational language, but without knowing all of the factors they are considering and the weight they are giving each, it becomes difficult to respond rationally yourself!
Believe it or not, I personally noticed (and appreciated) your change in dialect. I think it was a good choice on your part, and look forward to more of the same tenor in other publications, even those written from a different perspective from yours.
Best,
Kimberly