The Cleveland Museum of Art Acquires 2 Antiquities

A Roman bust of Drusus Minor

Last week the Cleveland Museum of Art announced that it had acquired these two antiquities. Both are, based on the pictures, quite beautiful. And certainly would be objects one one expect to see at a museum. The problem with them though is we don't know nearly enough about where they have come from, which means there is a very good chance they may have been looted from their context, stolen, or perhaps even fakes. And given that the museum returned 13 antiquities in 2008, and Turkey has also pressed repatriation claims, one would have thought that the museum would have been cautious to acquire newly-surfaced objects with

The Drusus Minor head has been listed on the AAMD's object registry site. It is a kind of clearing house where museums can place objects with limited histories and allow potential claimants to come forward. The problem of course is how can a nation know an object has been looted from its context. The site lists the country of origin for the object as "probably Algeria although could be anywhere within the ancient Roman Empire". Here is the history of the object listed there:

The Cleveland Museum of Art has provenance information for this work back to the 1960’s, but has been unable to obtain documentary confirmation of portions of the provenance as described below. The work was sold at public auction in 2004 when it first appeared on the art market. The work was initially identified and published as Tiberius, but was later (after 2007) recognized as a likeness of his son, Drusus Minor. A certificate of origin was issued dated the day after the auction by Jean-Philippe Mariaud de Serres (deceased 2007), who assisted the prior owner and consigner, Fernand Sintes. The certificate stated the sculpture came from the collection of Mr. and Mrs. Sintes of Marseilles; that the sculpture had been in Mr. Sintes’s family for many generations; that the family’s name was Bacri; and that they had lived in Algeria since 1860. The museum contacted Mrs. Sintes who confirmed on behalf of herself and Mr. Sintes that Mr. Sintes’ grandfather, Mr. Bacri, had owned the sculpture; that Mr. Sintes inherited the sculpture from his grandfather; that Mr. Sintes brought it from Algeria to Marseilles in 1960; that he had inherited it from his grandfather prior to bringing it to Marseilles; that the sculpture was sold at the Hôtel Drouot in 2004; and that they had worked with Mr. de Serres. The portrait, monumental in scale and of great historical importance, belongs to a major category of Roman imperial portraiture not otherwise represented in the collections of the Cleveland Museum of Art.

The acquisition of these objects-without-history has raised a great deal of attention. As David Gill notes, the earliest documented history of this object was 2004. And the rest of this history is I think little more than mere speculation, with very little solid evidence.

Rick St. Hilaire argues as much:

There is no explanation why the museum did not contact Fernand Sintes. There is also no information about Mr. Bacri's first name, how he came to own the artifact, or if there was paperwork specifically describing that Fernand Sintes would inherit the marble head after his grandfather's death. Did the museum seek out other family members or those in the Bacri family to get a more complete collecting history? That is not known.

A glazed Mayan vessel

And of course the Mayan vessel has a history which only slightly predates 1970. It has appeared in photographs in New York in 1969. But that was the time when the sites in Central and South America were being pillaged on a grand scale. Beautiful objects of course, but what price has been paid for them.

1. Randy Kennedy, Cleveland Museum Buys Antiquities, Stirs Ethics Debates, The New York Times, August 12, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/arts/design/cleveland-museum-buys-antiquities-stirs-ethics-debates.html (last visited Aug 23, 2012)
2. Steven Litt, Cleveland Museum of Art buys important ancient Roman and Mayan antiquities The Plain Dealer - cleveland.com (2012), http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2012/08/cleveland_museum_of_art_buys_i.html (last visited Aug 23, 2012).

Cleveland, Turkey and the belly of the whale

One of the contentious Jonah Marbles—dating from the very
beginning of Christianity at the CMA which Turkey has asked about

Turkey has undertaken the initial steps which may lead to calls for repatriation of objects in the collections of a number of prominent museums in North America and Europe. Steven Litt reports for the Cleveland Plain Dealer on the objects Turkey has asked about from Cleveland (via chasing aphrodite) at the Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA).

On the one hand, Turkey has some evidence of the location of the removal of these objects, and on the other, Museums like the CMA respond with a no comment on specific histories of the objects, along with protestations that Turkey lacks "clear evidence" of wrongdoing.

The museum acquired many of these objects during the notorious period of antiquities smuggling and looting. Litt's conclusion to the piece nails the difficulty the CMA will encounter if it continues to avoid the issue with Turkey:

Whatever happens next, the Cleveland museum finds itself on the leading edge of a potentially bitter international controversy. Artworks that have resided quietly in its collection for decades have suddenly acquired a sharp contemporary relevance. And while the museum fends off challenges that could gut parts of its collection, it may also feel pressure to research and share more about the origins of works such as the Marcus Aurelius, which remain unknown.

Though this controversy differs from the Italian repatriations which had the benefit of direct photographic evidence tying the objects to the illegal smuggling network, the CMA will find itself in an uncomfortable position. Its best defense to the questions—and they are only questions so far as we know—is to respond in the same way the Getty, the Met, the MFA in Boston and others responded to questions about the acquisition of those other objects which suddenly appeared on the market in the 1970s and 1980s. Wouldn't the just thing to do be to begin at least an initial good faith discussion with Turkey, especially when the Museum itself admits these objects originated in Asia Minor?

1. Steven Litt, Turkey’s inquiry into 22 treasures at the Cleveland Museum of Art lacks hard proof of looting, Cleveland Plain Dealer, 27 May 2012 http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2012/05/turkeys_inquiry_into_22_treasu.html.

Cleveland Museum of Art to Unveil its Apollo

 Steven Litt reports on this bronze Apollo acquired by the Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA) in 2004 for a reported $5 million.  It may be the only surviving original work by the Greek master Praxiteles. 

In fact it is slated to be the centerpiece of the CMA's renovated classical gallery. Given the CMA's returns to Italy of a number of other objects, and the recent acquisition of this piece, there was a joint scientific study of the statue.  Reportedly, evidence suggests the sculpture has been excavated for perhaps 100 years, though Greece has argued it was salvaged from the Adriatic in the 1990s and then illegally sold. The history of the object seems suspect to say the least. Its recent history stems from Ernst-Ulrich Walter, a retired German lawyer who said he found the statue lying in pieces when he recovered his family's estate in the former East Germany.

It was then sold to a Dutch art dealer, then sold to the Phoenix Ancient art gallery which then sold it on to the CMA. We have no idea where or how this stunning statue was unearthed.  What a tragedy that its history is unknown.  This could be one of only 30 large bronzes from the ancient Greeks which survived to modern times, or it might very well be a forgery. There is no contextual information. Was it really in pieces for 100 years? There is no evidence it was stolen, looted or illegally exported. Rather, there exists a paucity of information about its origins and a curious recent history. That is not enough to base a legal claim, and the CMA are confident enough about the object that they ave decided to make it the centerpiece of their ancient galleries which opened Saturday.  Yet the CMA have not been real eager to release all the collecting details for the bronze. 

Prof. Patty Gerstenblith wonders at the end of the piece "I don't know who they're protecting by secrecy." The question may be rhetorical, as we don't know perhaps exactly how the bronze came to Cleveland, but the fewer questions the museum asks about the history of this bronze, the easier it will be for the museum to keep the bronze.

1. Steven Litt, Cleveland Museum of Art's Apollo sculpture is a star with intriguing past, Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 20, 2010, http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2010/06/cleveland_museum_of_arts_apoll.html (last visited Jun 21, 2010).

Cleveland Museum of Art Returns 14 Objects to Italy

Today the Cleveland Museum of Art will hand over 14 looted works of art to Italy, including this Donkey-Head Rhyton, (c. 475 BC).  Steven Litt has an account for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. These works were likely looted between 1975 and 1996, and were the subject of an agreement reached last November.  In exchange for the return, Italy will lend 13 other objects of comparable quality for renewable 25-year periods. 

Timothy Rub, the CMA Director says in Litt's piece that the agreement was "open and fair and equitable to all parties. I was pleased then, and still am, that we reached a conclusion that was just that . . .  My focus going forward, and the principal point of contact with the Italian government, has been on what we intend to do in the future . . .  We have some work to do in terms of finalizing requests to a number of museums with the blessing and concurrence of the [Italian] cultural ministry."

Cleveland Museum of Art and Italy Reach Repatriation Agreement

The Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA) and the Italian Culture Ministry announced today an agreement which will return 14 objects to Italy in exchange for loans of "a similar number of works of equal aesthetic and historical significance". The loans will be for a "renewable" 25-year period. The objects are going back to Italy because they have been looted, stolen or illegally exported.

David Gill has compiled a list of the objects, and provided links to their description on the CMA website.

Here is the list:

1) Pig-shaped Feeding Vessel/Vaso plastico a porcellino.
2) Mule Head Rhyton/Rython a testa di mulo. (Pictured here).
3) Sardinian Warrior/Bronzetto nuragico.
4) Apulian Volute Krater by the Darius Painter; Departure of Anphiaros/Cratere a volute a figure rosse.
5) Etruscan Red-figure Duck Askos/Askos ad anatra a figure rosse.
6) Bird Askos/Askos campano ad uccello.
7) Dog “Lekanis” Bowl with Lid/Coppa e coperchio a figure rosse.
8) Apulian Gnathia Flat-Bodied Epichysis/Epichysis tipo Gnathia.
9) Apulian Gnathia Round-Bellied Epichysis/Epichysis tipo Gnathia.
10) Apulian Gnathia Lekythos/Lekythos tipo Gnathia.
11) Acorn Lekythos: An Eros Serving a Lady/Lekythos campana a figure rosse.
12) Corinthian Krater/Cratere a colonnette corinzio.
13) Pair of Bracelets/Due coppie di armille in argento.
14) 14th Century Italian Processional Cross/croce processionale in rame dorato del sec. XIV.

The announcement is not really a surprise. The former Culture Minister, Francesco Rutelli, had hinted at this deal for months. The deal is the result of a "friendly and collaborative 18-month negotiation" as reported by Steven Litt, the Cleveland Plain Dealer Art Critic. That's the way both sides are describing the negotiations. Timothy Rub, director of the CMA told Litt "I think it's always difficult when adverse claims are made against an object or objects in a museum's collection, but the most important thing to do is to first of all determine if these claims have any merit, and if they do, to deal with them as transparently and as thoroughly as possible. This has been a very open and thoughtful discussion."

Likewise, Maurizio Fiorilli, said "The director is an exquisite person, this was a negotiation among gentlemen. They always collaborated and exhibited great openness, therefore, I am content." High praise indeed.

The crucial point to pick up on here is these objects were connected with Giacomo de Medici, which Italian and Swiss authorities raided in 1995. The polaroids they seized are the engine driving nearly all of these repatriations. Without that solid evidence, the chances are that these objects would not be returned. The restitution of these works is a positive developmetn to be sure, but will they continue? Has the antiquities trade learned its lesson? What about institutions who want to make further acquisitions? Are further acquisitions possible? Can we be sure they are legally excavated? Are the fundamental legal mechanics of the purchase and sale of antiquities different now than they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s? I don't think so. The underlying problems persist, though at least public perception has changed markedly. On that front, perhaps judges will be more inclined to adopt more encompassing views of the foundational international legal agreements such as the 1970 UNESCO Convention, but the antiquities trade can still effectively evade legal safeguards.

To see how let's contrast these returns with the CMA's recently-acquired bronze Apollo, pictured here. Not being an art historian nor an archaeologist, I still think this Apollo is a much more interesting and valuable antiquity than most of the objects being returned. In fact it is slated to be the centerpiece of the CMA's renovated classical exhibition. Litt reported today that there will be a joint scientific study of the statute which was acquired by the museum in 2004. The Apollo was the subject of another article by Litt in the Plain Dealer back in February. Evidence suggests the sculpture has been excavated for perhaps 100 years, though Italy has argued it was salvaged from the Adriatic in the 1990s and then illegally sold. The publicly-released provenance of the object seems a bit suspect. Its recent history stems from Ernst-Ulrich Walter, a retired German lawyer who said he foudn the statue lying in pieces when he recovered his family's estate in the former East Germany.

It was then sold to a Dutch art dealer (Michael van Rijn perhaps?), then sold to the Phoenix Ancient art gallery. We have no idea where or how this stunning statue was found. There is no contextual information. Was it really in pieces for 100 years? The discussion and feeling from the CMA and Italy definitely don't seem to indicate there will be a much in the way of a continued dispute over the object. And that's because there is no evidence it was stolen, looted or illegally exported. Rather, there exists a paucity of information about its origins. That is not enough to base a legal claim.