Francesco Rutelli on the Euphronios Krater

This Saturday I participated in the ARCA Conference on the study of art crime in Amelia Italy.  I'll have a lot more to say about my time in Italy, ARCA, and the masters course generally in the coming days, but I wanted to share one of the highlights.

One of the speakers, and the recipient of one of the ARCA awards was Francesco Rutelli, former Culture Minister of Italy.  Following his short discussion there was time for a couple of questions, and I was able to ask about his thoughts on the current disposition and position of the Euphronios Krater, on display here at the Villa Giulia.  Michael Kimmelman had an interesting piece last week in the New York Times, arguing "Italy’s biggest prize in the war against looting antiquities went on view recently at the Villa Giulia in Rome" but that "Italians didn’t seem to care much".  I found that to be pretty typical, as an American visiting Rome, itis not really easy to see how or it can be quite difficult to find where the Krater, or many of the other returned objects are currently on display, particularly in a city and country with so many beautiful objects and heritage sites, wich  which truly is an enormous open-air museum. 

I asked Rutelli about that, about how Italian's don't seem all that interested in the Krater and how not many people are visiting it.  He responded with what I thought was a pretty thoughtful answer.  He stated that the piece is in "the correct place" and that in "scientific terms it is correct".  It is an Etruscan object, and the Villa Giulia is the Etruscan museum—arguing that if the piece had been properly and legally excavated from Cerveteri, this is where the piece would have been displayed.

He did acknowledge though, that there may have been problems with "publicity and information", a problem he traces to the current government, which he argued "should do more", and these repatriated objects should all be displayed together as part of a meaningful message. 

He had a lot of interesting things to say, and the presentation of the award, and the audience of ARCA Masters students, interested observers, and reporters gave him an opportunity to look back on the repatriations of the last few years; and of course he was the public face of much of the negotiations between Italy and many North American museums.  Though he did point out that it was not just North American institutions.  Repatriations were also reached with Japanese and other European institutions—a fact often overlooked.  I'll have much more to say about his other comments, which included Robin Symes, and a kind of a response to James Cuno, in the next few days.

Italy-Cleveland Museum of Art Agreement?

On Friday, the AP reported that Italy and the Cleveland Museum of Art had reached an oral agreement to return some antiquities to Italy. Lee Rosenbaum rightly points out that this may be an example of Italy (specifically its departing minister Francesco Rutelli) jumping the gun before an agreement has in fact been concluded.

Though Rutelli has certainly achieved a number of notable successes during his term as Italy's Culture Minister, his actions have also seemingly been motivated in many cases by the desire to gain political and media attention. This present announcement seems to be a case of Rutelli attempting to take credit for one last repatriation as he is soon to be replaced by Sandro Bondi in Berlusconi's new Italian government. Though an agreement may have been reached in principle with the Cleveland Museum of Art, nothing is set in stone nor reduced to writing, and negotiations appear to be ongoing. The principal issue in these cases often isn't necessarily what will go back to Italy, but what kinds of loans and agreements Cleveland can hope to receive in return.

Shelby White Returns 10 Antiquities

In a move that had long been suspected, Shelby White has agreed to return ten antiquities from her private collection to Italy. Elisabetta Povoledo has a summary in today's New York Times. David Gill, who has long been asking about this collection has a summary and helpful links at looting matters as well. Nine of the objects, including this fresco, were given to Italian authorities earlier this week, while a 5th Century BC Greek vessel will be returned in 2010.

The reason these objects were returned is, of course, that photographs show these objects in highly suspicious circumstances. They were discovered in the massive investigation of Giacomo Medici broken and in some cases still encrusted with dirt. They were almost certainly looted. The broader question again is, have future philanthropists been discouraged from acquiring illicit antiquities? Will Shelby White acquire antiquities differently in the future? As a private individual, it's difficult of us to expect her to adopt an acquisition policy, but to guarantee more acquisitions like this don't take place there needs to be a continued push for market reform.

Given the impression given by news reports, I find it highly unlikely that White intended to acquire looted objects; however the market fails to effectively distinguish illicit or looted objects. A better system would take the interest and capital of a collector like Shelby White and ensure a substantial portion of those proceeds go towards future excavations and protection of sites. However the current state of the antiquities trade makes that nearly impossible.

White, and her late husband Leon Levy have long collected antiquities, and supported research and other causes. White gave $20 million to the Met to construct a new Greek and Roman Gallery which opened last year. They have also supported antiquities digs in "Israel, the Aegean, Iran, turkey, the Balkans and elsewhere" according to the NYT piece. White won't be receiving anything in return for her agreement to relinquish these ten objects, save an agreement that Italy will not seek other objects in her collection. However, that may not be such a bad thing, as Lee Rosenbaum pointed out yesterday by showing what the Met got in return for the Euphronios Krater, where it displayed the three loaned objects, and why perhaps it didn't make much of an announcement about them.

Nostoi (UPDATE)

The Nostoi ("Returns") epic is mostly lost, but the bits and pieces which have survived indicate it tells the story of the return home of the Greek heroes after the Trojan War.

It is perhaps apt then that Italian authorities on Monday called the display "Nostoi: Returned Masterpieces" when they unveiled 68 antiquities which have recently been returned to Italy. Soon to join the list is the Euphronios Krater, which is slated for return from the Met in January.

Livia Borghese and Jason Felch have the story in the LA Times. Elisabetta Povoledo has a similar story in the NY Times, including a slide show by the AP and Italian Culture ministry. This image may be my favorite of the bunch, the Griffins attacking the doe. Objects were returned from the Getty, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, Princeton, and the Met. Also, some objects from the Royal Athena Galleries in New York were returned as well.

As might be expected, Francesco Rutelli the Italian culture minister and vice prime minister was quick to point out the significance of these returns saying, "The odyssey of these objects, which started with their brutal removal from the bowels of the earth, didn't end on the shelf of some American museum... With nostalgia, they have returned. These beautiful pieces have reconquered their souls."

Ultimately, the display shows the results of the Italian campaign which by necessity eschewed international law, and American law and instead went right to the heart of the matter using public pressure and the media along with the high-profile and ongoing trials of Marion True and Robert Hecht. At the press conference, Rutelli claimed that this strategy has "[brought] about radical changes in the trade of looted antiquities". That may be true in a limited sense I suppose, but only I think when the antiquities are backed by strong political will in source nations. What about the trade in antiquities from South America or Iran and elsewhere? I'm not sure this strategy will impact those objects. I'm not sure either that this new strategy will alter the idea of the Universal Museum, which seems largely at odds with the policy of many source nations. Ideally the Italian accords will continue to allow the US and Italy to work together to continue to share objects but also to prevent the acquisition of illicit antiquities in the future.

UPDATE:

Sarah Delaney has more in yesterday's Washington Post, with more pontificating by Rutelli including this: "if we dry up the waters of illegal art trafficking it will be much more difficult for tombaroli and others to operate." He praised as well the "new standards of ethics that American museums have adopted". First among these is the Getty's stringent new acquisition policy. Also, museums who cooperate will earn continued loans.

David Gill has more on the official handlist of objects in the display, including where objects came from, and a breakdown of the type and composition of objects. As he points out, "15 pieces were represented by South Italian pottery."

Good Faith Acquisition of Antiquities?

Lee Rosenbaum at CultureGrrl has more on the Italy/Princeton agreement. At the right is a "Apulian red figure loutrophos from South Italy, ca. 335-325 B.C." This object will remain at Princeton but Italy will gain title.

Importantly, Rosenbaum tells us Princeton's spokesperson, Cass Cliatt maintains the University had acquired the objects in good faith. Also, further details will not be forthcoming because of a "confidentiality agreement" between the two parties. Also, Princeton is "anticipating posting our acquisition policies, but they are still in the revision stage and will be made available at the appropriate time." Rosenbaum rightly expresses some skepticism at this reticence.

It seems to me that Princeton will not be the last museum to deal with Italian claims, as Rutelli has indicated it will pursue similar arrangements with the Cleveland Museum of Art, the New Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen, and the Miho Museum in Japan. These restitutions are a welcome sign, but they will mean very little in the long run if these institutions do not erect appropriate safeguards. At present we are relying on institutions to police themselves. I'm beginning to reach the admittedly pessimistic conclusion that a good-faith acquisition of antiquities may not be possible given the way the market currently operates.

Antiquities Telethon

Even in Italy, where cultural policy plays a bigger role in politics than perhaps any other nation, funds for preserving and protecting objects and sites are hard to come by. As such Italy and Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli have resorted to a 3-day telethon to publicize the return of works from the Getty and to raise much-needed funds. One wonders how much of this is needed to raise funds and how much is political posturing. From Tom Kington's report in today's Guardian:

To soaring music by Ennio Morricone, seven sites featured in rotating TV spots, including Augustus's villa where the frescos and flooring are decaying, the Sulky Punic necropolis in Sardinia, dating back to the fourth century BC, and an abandoned Norman fort near Cosenza.

Organisers also made room for more recent sites such as the Racconigi Royal Park in Cuneo, where a restoration project is needed for the 19th-century greenhouse in which the first Italian pineapples were grown. Also to benefit is Cremona's centre for the restoration of antique musical instruments, as well as a rusty 19th-century railway line which connects the Sicilian baroque towns of Syracuse, Modica and Ragusa. If viewers cough up, the train will be turned into a museum on wheels for visitors.

The most modern candidate was championed by opera singer Andrea Bocelli: a museum for visually impaired people in Ancona lets visitors run their hands along reproductions of sculptures and archaeological finds.

Italy's culture ministry pointed out that Italians only donated €42m in 2006 to protect their cultural heritage, compared with the €350m handed over by the French.

As the weekend drew to a close, donations were nearing the target, albeit with €300,000 of that coming from a US foundation.

The telethon comes amid rising resentment in Italy at the perceived free-spending habits of privileged politicians.

In an attempt to give an example of honest toil by politicians, Mr Rutelli displayed some of the artworks Italy claims were stolen and smuggled from its shores and has won back through the courts from the Getty Museum in Los Angeles.

Mr Rutelli said the works would go on free display at the Quirinale in Rome, the sprawling presidential palace which has taken centre stage in the row over politicians' spending after it was revealed that the cost of maintaining the president and his army of guardsmen, gardeners and silver polishers was higher than that of Buckingham Palace.

Evaluating the Italy/Getty Accord

Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino--nominated for a pulitzer in 2005 for their reporting on the Getty--have a can't miss article in Friday's edition of the LA Times. The subject is the agreement to return 40 antiquities to Italy.

Here's an excerpt:

The museum's youth and wealth made it an ideal target. Unlike its East Coast peers, which built the bulk of their collections in the decades before tough new laws governing antiquity purchases, the Getty came late to the collecting game. The museum didn't receive its enormous endowment until the early 1980s, just as the United States was ratifying an international agreement that, among other things, banned traffic in artifacts that had left Italy without permission after 1939.

Fine antiquities, a passion of the museum's benefactor and namesake, could still be found on the market. But museum officials often turned a blind eye to whether the artifacts had been illegally excavated and exported from their country of origin.

It's an excellent overview of this dispute, and the problem with the antiquities trade generally. It also gives the context for how the Getty got itself into this mess and how it has responded in the past months. There's a photo gallery of some of the important works which will be returned to Italy here; a helpful .pdf shows where in the Getty Villa the works are currently displayed; there's also a nice gallery of photos from Italy by Luis Sinco here (including this image of a looted grave in Castelvetrano, Sicily).

NPR's All Things Considered also covered the agreement this week. You can hear Michael Brand, the museum director, give his opinion. Patty Gerstenblith, a legal commentator on antiquities issues, also comments that this agreement rights past wrongs. Perhaps more relevant though is the Getty's decision to no longer acquire antiquities without clean title dating to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. As she says, working to stem the illicit antiquities trade "is the most important thing that museums can and should be doing at this point."

I also think the comments of Francesco Rutelli on Thursday were dead-on, and indicated a pragmatic view of the trade that many passionate advocates miss. He said efforts to stem the illicit antiquities trade "make looting more attractive." He continues "Such a decisive fight against art trafficking makes looting more attractive, in the sense that (the items) have a higher value because there are fewer... An object that a few years ago could be bought for US$400,000 (€290,250), today is worth US$4 million (€2.9 million)." He's exactly right, and its something legal commentators have been arguing since Paul Bator's seminal work An Essay on the International Trade in Art.

Italy Blinks

Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino report in today's LA Times that Italy and the Getty have reopened discussions over 46 potentially illicit antiquities. New discussions are possible because it seems Italy has relented in its claim to the "Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth". As I and others have argued, Italy's claims to the bronze are weak: the statue was found by chance in the Adriatic, it was probably created in Greece, it has been in the Getty for 30 years, and Italy was unable to establish any wrongdoing during criminal proceedings in the 1960s.

As to a new criminal investigation:

A senior Italian official said the culture ministry decided that the fate of the statue should not be negotiated until a new criminal investigation into the statue's discovery and export from Italy is complete. The official asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak on the record while negotiations were ongoing.

The new investigation, being conducted by a regional magistrate, was requested several months ago by a local citizens group in Fano, hometown of the fishermen who found the statue, brought it ashore and hid it in a cabbage field before selling it to a local dealer.

But even its citizen sponsors admit the investigation is unlikely to uncover the full story of the artifact's discovery and export from Italy. Nearly four decades have passed since the bronze athlete left Italy under mysterious circumstances, and many of the people involved have since died.

This is a welcome development, and allows both sides to engage in meaningful negotiations. In the past Italy has given loans of other objects in exchange for the return of contested works. Negotiations will likely be difficult though, as the Getty has 45 contested antiquities, and the criminal trial of Marion True overshadows much of the negotiation. It will be interesting to hear what Francesco Rutelli has to say about this development, as he has argued very strongly for some months that the Bronze must be returned.

Antiquities and Politics

On Wednesday, Christopher Knight of the Los Angeles Times gave an interesting perspective on the Italy/Getty dispute. He expressed some of the same ideas I've had for months. Namely, that Italy does not have a strong claim the the "Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth" and Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli, who Lee Rosenbaum has labelled the "Great Repatriator", is using Italian cultural pride to earn political capital.

To start, Knight could not foresee the recent dispute over a da Vinci loan taking place in the US:

Imagine Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) chaining himself to the gates of New York's Metropolitan Museum to protest the loan of Emanuel Leutze's "Washington Crossing the Delaware" to a foreign museum.Unimaginable? That's the point. The brawl over the Leonardo loan was overwrought, but in Italy it was politics as unusual.

As I said back in March, "Cultural policy is a much more prominent part of Italian politics than in many other countries." Knight makes an interesting connection from this kind of outrage to recent Italian/American relations:

The flash point was Prodi's advocacy for the controversial expansion of an American Army base in Vicenza. Thirty thousand peaceful protesters poured into the streets in December, followed by 80,000 in February. Then a motion in the Italian Senate to support the government's pro-U.S. foreign policy failed, much to Prodi's surprise. His precarious coalition government temporarily collapsed. It's still riven with fissures, and the left remains its most unruly faction.

Rutelli's escalating anti-Getty posturing is old-fashioned political demagoguery, pitched to voters back home. The ultimatum symbolically proclaims that powerful American interests cannot push Italy around, making the government look tough. The emptiness of Italy's legal and ethical claims for the Getty Bronze are beside the point.

I think that is exactly right. The engine driving Italy's very effective public repatriation campaign is Italian respect for their own culture. I've spoken with some Italians about this very issue, and their immediate response is "of course the bronze should go back". But in this case such pride may be doing more harm than good. I've included a very unscientific poll at the left just to see what readers may think about this dispute. I expect to hear more from both sides in the coming week, as Rutelli's deadline expires.

Should the Getty send the Bronze to Italy?

We are approaching the deadline imposed by Italian Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli to send the "Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth" to Italy. Rutelli has said the Getty has until the end of July to return 47 antiquities to Italy or risk a "real embargo". The Getty has announced it will return 26 of those objects, not including the bronze, but the two sides seem unable to broker a deal. In early July Rutelli announced from Fano, the Italian fishing community where the fishermen first brought the bronze ashore, that he had submitted a "final proposal for dialogue and agreement [and if no deal is done,] a real conflict will begin, a real embargo--that is, the interruption of cultural and scientific collaboration between Italy and that museum."

I'd like to summarize the reasons the Getty has refused to send the bronze to Italy, and why Italy wants the bronze to be included with the other repatriated objects. I'm curious how folks feel about this dispute. I've added an unscientific poll at the left where you can cast your vote.

Before I summarize the two arguments, I should make clear that Italy has no legal claim to the statue. They cannot file a suit and ask for the return of the object both because they cannot prove the statue was removed from Italian waters, and the statute of limitations has probably expired anyway. Rather Italy is making an ethical argument for the statue.

How the Statue Was Found:

“The Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth” is an almost life-size figure of an athlete wearing a victory wreath. The Statue was created in Greece, possibly by Alexander the Great’s Court Sculptor Lysippos, but it may have been sculpted by another. It was created sometime between the 4^th and 2^nd Century B.C.

In June, 1964 the Statue was recovered in modern times, by complete accident, off the northern Adriatic coast by fisherman from the Italian city of Fano. They pulled up a heavy object covered in barnacles. The most likely explanation for the find in the Adriatic is that it was taken from Greece in Roman times, and the vessel was lost at sea. A number of Greek objects were taken by invading Roman armies, the most noteworthy instance was during the fall of Syracuse. When the fisherman returned to Fano, they decided to sell the statue. The statue changed hands a number of times.

We know that Giacomo Barbetti purchased the statue from the fisherman. For a time, Barbetti and his two brothers stored the statue at the home of Father Giovanni Nagni. Barbetti then sold the statue to another man for 4,000,000 lire, not a great sum of money. It would have amounted to about $4,000. In 1966, the 3 Barbettis and Father Nagni were charged with purchasing and concealing stolen property under Italy’s 1939 Antiquities Law. The prosecution reached the Court of Appeals of Rome, however it overturned the convictions for 2 reasons (1) The prosecutors did not establish the statue came from Italian waters, and (2) there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that the statue was of “artistic and archaeological interest”. After the Barbetti’s sold the statue, the Provenance (chain of title) of the statue is a bit vague, and open to some speculation. Most likely it went through a series of owners, in an attempt to achieve a bona fide purchase at some point. It went from a Brazilian Monastery to England, and later to Munich.

In 1977, the Getty Trust purchased the Bronze for $3.95 million. It has been publicly displayed since 1978. Until 2006, Italy made no more formal requests for the Bronze, though they did ask the Getty to evaluate the possibility of returning the statue to Italy in 1989.

Italy's Claim

Italy’s claim relies on the creation of some kind of nexus between Italy’s cultural heritage and the Bronze based on the time it was brought ashore by the fishermen at Fano. Italian authorities have at various times labelled the bronze as stolen, despite the fact Italy is unable to establish the statue was found in it's own national waters, and as a result its national patrimony law will not apply. However, Italy does ban the export of antiquities, and the statue was almost certainly illicitly removed from Italy before traveling to Switzerland and Frankfurt before its sale to the Getty.

The Getty's Response

The Getty has said that Italy had no claim to the bronze once it left Italy. In fact, Italian law would shield a good-faith purchaser in this case. Italy was unable to establish the statue was found in Italian waters during the criminal prosecutions in the 1960's. Also, the Getty has argued the statue has been at the Getty far longer then it ever stayed on Italian soil.

We don't know if the Getty knew about the statue's illicit export when they bought it, or if they tried to research its provenance before the purchase. I've stated who I think has the stronger claim in the past, but I'm interested in what others may think based on the arguments put forward by both sides.

More Posturing from Francesco Rutelli

Italy's Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli just returned from a visit to the United States, and no visit is complete without more criticism of the Getty. Yesterday Rutelli repeated his claims. The LA Times has a good compilation of the Wire reports here. There is little new information save a new deadline. Rutelli says the Getty has until the end of July to return contested objects, else risk a "real embargo" which would preclude loans and collaborations with Italy in research and conservation projects. Rutelli said he had submitted a "final proposal for dialogue and agreement [and if no deal is done,] a real conflict will begin, a real embargo--that is, the interruption of cultural and scientific collaboration between Italy and that museum."

What exactly the "final proposal" entails is unknown. Ron Hartwig the Getty spokesman did say that Rutelli sent a "very cordial...very encouraging" letter and that Michael Brand had "responded in kind". As I understand it, the Getty has agreed to return many of the contested objects which Italy wants. However, the Getty is unable to reach an agreement because Rutelli has insisted no deal can be finished without the return of this statue, the "Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth". I've discussed this particular claim before, which you can read about by clicking the label below. Italy has no legal claim to the bronze statue, and a weak ethical argument for its return as well.

Rutelli is trying to associate the stronger claim the Getty has in the Bronze statue with the other objects with far more dubious provenances. It gets Rutelli's comments in the papers, and it keeps the repatriation issue open, but seems unlikely to lead to a workable compromise.

UPDATE:

Rutelli made yesterday's announcement from the fishing port of Fano in Italy, where the statue was brought ashore by the fishermen who found it. I have updated the first paragraph accordingly.

Rutelli, Repatriation and Cultural Policy

Lee Rosenbaum has some very interesting things to say over at Culturegrrl on the press conference Italian Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli had yesterday at the Italian Cultural Institute in New York.

First, as Lee says,

Robert Stiriti (second from left, above), attaché at the American Embassy in Rome for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told me that criminal charges "are pending" in Italy (but have not yet been filed) against an American private collector who owned several objects (including the marble sarcophagus of a child) recovered by ICE on Oct. 20 from his New York residence.

Also, Rutelli announced there may be a forthcoming agreement between Italy and Princeton concerning some objects, which would likely involve some loans from Italy.

The two cornerstones of recent Italian repatriation efforts have been the threat of prosecution along with cultural loans if objects are returned. It's a strategy that has worked quite well. The engine behind these efforts is the political goodwill engendered in Italy when objects are returned. That seems to make Italy unique, perhaps in all the world, where cultural policy matters.

It brings to mind a time when perhaps cultural policy mattered in America.

There's been a lot of discussion about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Pentagon of late. I always enjoy stories of the Works Project Administration making art and building places like Red Rocks and The Supreme Court Building during the great depression. Steve Vogel has been making the rounds on npr and the daily show for his new book The Pentagon: The Untold Story. They broke ground on the building 3 months before Pearl Harbor (on September 11, 1941). The initial site was supposed to be opposite the Lincoln Memorial. But President Roosevelt was pressured by the fine arts commission to move the building site. They didn't want to disturb the vista between Lee's Mansion and the Lincoln memorial. The President who led America through the great depression and WWII stopped to consider the view for future generations. I couldn't imagine the current executive taking such considerations; I think that tells volumes about how cultural policy has changed dramatically.

An Ancient City with Modern Problems

On Sunday the BBC had an interesting article with video of Rome's struggle to maintain Roman monuments, excavate them, and preserve them; all while other more pressing contemporary budgetary matters take priority. Tourism does stem from historical sites as the piece points out. I wonder how much of Italy's recent efforts to repatriate objects may stem from the fact that there have been budget cuts in other sectors? Not sure about that, I'm just speculating. If anyone may know of any data along those lines, I would be interested to hear it. Does Italy have a double standard? Is it arguing too vehemently against collectors abroad as a way to shift attention from the difficult problems of preservation and protection domestically? Even Francesco Rutelli was critical of the difficulties in development in Rome while he was mayor there.

Protest over a Da Vinci Loan

This work by Leonardo Da Vinci, the Annunciation, is slated to be displayed in Tokyo until mid June. However, a number of Italians are upset about the loan. Italian Senator Paolo Amato pictured below has chained himself to the entrance to the Uffizi gallery in Florence to protest the loan. The BBC has a story here, and an AP story is here.

Cultural policy is a much more prominent part of Italian politics than in many other countries. Amato has accused Italian Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli of being "arrogant" for deciding to agree to the loan. The work has travelled before, to Paris and Milan in the 1930's, and it was hidden during WWII. However, it has remained in the Uffizi since 1945.

I have very little knowledge of how risky transportation of important works is. The work "was being bundled into three protective crates filled with shock-absorbers and high-tech sensors to monitor humidity, temperatures and stress levels in preparation for departure Tuesday." That seems pretty secure to me, but I suppose any risk of loss of this important work would be a tragedy.

Thanks to David Nishimura at Cronaca for pointing out the story.

The "Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth"

Earlier this week I had the great pleasure to give a presentation to the University of Aberdeen Legal research Society. I discussed the very public dispute between Italy and the Getty museum regarding the "Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth". The discussion which ensued was furthered greatly by the presence of Neil Curtis, Senior Curator of the Marischal Museum, as well as a couple of Italian colleagues. We had a very interesting discussion, and much of the credit for that goes to them. I would like to outline here my general comments on the dispute. I have posted on many of these ideas before, but if nothing else the dispute over the Bronze allows a timely and interesting introduction to cultural policy and repatriation.

As the LA Times put it last fall, "To whom does a statue made in ancient Greece, stolen by Romans and found in the Adriatic by Italian fishermen 2,000 years later, rightfully belong?"

First, what is the Getty trust, and why has it gotten itself into trouble in recent decades? J. Paul Getty was an American Industrialist, and the founder of the Getty Oil company. He started the Getty Trust in 1953. Today, the Trust may be the richest art institution in the world, boasting assets of close to $9 billion dollars. In recent decades, the Getty pursued a very aggressive antiquities-buying campaign, which by itself may be an innocent activity. However we now know that many of those antiquities were illicitly excavated or exported illegally.

Italy has a large amount of discovered and undiscovered antiquities. It is also an industrialized nation. Many of the nations which are considered source nations (i.e. those that export more cultural objects than they import) are underdeveloped. So Italy is in a unique position. Historically, Italian antiquities have been exported to the rest of Europe, and other parts of the world. Increasingly, Italy has sought to prevent the loss of these cultural objects. The last 18 months has seen the Italian Culture Ministry lead a very aggressive repatriation campaign with three components

1. Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions,

2. Raised repatriation claims with Museums and Private collectors,

3. A Public Relations Campaign.

There have been a number of high-profile repatriations by American museums in recent months. The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, and the Metropolitan Museum (Euphronios Krater) in New York have both agreed to return antiquities.

A former curator at the Getty, Marion True is on trial in Rome for conspiring to deal in Italian antiquities. This has had a very unpleasant public relations consequences for the Getty. Italy has demanded the return of 52 Antiquities from the Getty. The two parties have been negotiating a return of many of the objects for many months. However this fall, Italy abruptly broke of talks with the Getty, and said no agreement could be reached unless the Getty returned the Bronze. If the Getty did not agree to these terms, the Italians threatened the Getty with a “cultural embargo”.

Francesco Rutelli, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Culture and Heritage sent an Op-Ed to the Wall Street Journal saying:

Italy has been trying for over six months to conclude an agreement with Los Angeles’s Getty Museum on 46 ancient works of art that were illicitly removed from our country. I still hope to succeed. But on one point, I am unable to understand the museum’s position. How can they think that the Italian government will accept an agreement that contemplates renouncing possession of those works of art?

The 46 works that we are waiting for include the Venus illicitly removed from Morgantina in Sicily , and the bronze Athlete that was hauled up in a fishing net from the waters of the Adriatic sea and later secretly smuggled out of Italy in total violation of its laws.

What then of the statue itself? To better evaluate Italy’s claims, we need to look at the circumstances under which it was found. “The Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth” is an almost life-size figure of an athlete wearing a victory wreath. The Statue was created in Greece, possibly by Alexander the Great’s Court Sculptor Lysippos, but it may have been sculpted by another. It was created sometime between the 4^th and 2^nd Century B.C. Now my Italian colleagues rightly pointed out that a number of Greek settlements were founded in what we today think of as Italy.

In June, 1964 the Statue was recovered in modern times, by complete accident, off the northern Adriatic coast by fisherman from the Italian city of Fano. They pulled up a heavy object covered in barnacles. The most likely explanation for the find in the Adriatic is that it was taken from Greece in Roman times, and the vessel was lost at sea. A number of Greek objects were taken by invading Roman armies, the most noteworthy instance was during the fall of Syracuse. When the fisherman returned to Fano, they decided to sell the statue. The statue changed hands a number of times.

We know that Giacomo Barbetti purchased the statue from the fisherman. For a time, Barbetti and his two brothers stored the statue at the home of Father Giovanni Nagni. Barbetti then sold the statue to another man for 4,000,000 lire, not a great sum of money. It would have amounted to about $4,000. In 1966, the 3 Barbettis and Father Nagni were charged with purchasing and concealing stolen property under Italy’s 1939 Antiquities Law. The prosecution reached the Court of Appeals of Rome, however it overturned the convictions for 2 reasons (1) The prosecutors did not establish the statue came from Italian waters, and (2) there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that the statue was of “artistic and archaeological interest”. After the Barbetti’s sold the statue, the Provenance (chain of title) of the statue is a bit vague, and open to some speculation. Most likely it went through a series of owners, in an attempt to achieve a bona fide purchase at some point. It went from a Brazilian Monastery to England, and later to Munich.

In 1977, the Getty Trust purchased the Bronze for $3.95 million. It has been publicly displayed since 1978. Until 2006, Italy made no more formal requests for the Bronze, though they did ask the Getty to evaluate the possibility of returning the statue to Italy in 1989.

Legal Analysis of the Dispute

Even if the statue was found in Italian national waters, it’s nearly impossible to prove at this point. The criminal trials of the 3 Barbetti’s and Father Nagni loom large here. Italian prosecutors were not able to establish in 1968 that the Bronze was discovered in Italian territorial waters. To attempt to prove it nearly 40 years on is nearly impossible.

If the statue had been found in Italian national waters, both US and Italian law would dictate that Italy owns the Bronze. The 1939 Italian Patrimony law requires that the object was declared within the territory of Italy to apply. To be sure, if Italy was able establish the statue had been discovered in Italian national waters they would have brought a legal action long ago in US federal court, or even had Federal prosecutors seize the statue.

Illegal Export from Italy Does Not Dictate It should be handed over to Italy

Logically, the Bronze came ashore in Italy after it was discovered. Italian law requires that antiquities deemed of interest by the State, even those owned by private individuals cannot be exported without a license. US law does not enforce foreign export regulations. This goes back to the general rule that Public laws of another nation will not be enforced. US v. Schultz, 333 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2003), US v. McClain,545 F.2d 988 (5^th Cir. 1977). Also, there are a lot of different kinds of export restrictions, and they are not always working well in limiting illicit trade. The reasons for this are beyond our present concern, but it is well settled that most nations will not enforce the export restrictions of another nation.

International Law

Italy has argued that international treaties dictate the Bronze should be returned. What they are referencing is the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

This does impose on states an obligation to prevent the illicit export of cultural property. However, it contains no provisions mandating the return or permitting the seizure of objects, except those that have been stolen.

The Convention is by its own terms, not in force unless enacted into domestic law. However, when the statue was imported into the US, neither Italy nor the US had ratified the Convention.

Ethical Analysis of the Dispute

Finally, what are the values we should look at in evaluating cultural property controversies?

1. Archaeological Context
2. Preservation of the Object
3. Access by the Public
4. International Movement
5. Preserving a National Patrimony of Works

Italy’s position relies on the creation of some kind of nexus between Italy’s cultural heritage and the Bronze based on the time it was brought ashore by the fishermen at Fano. This is a very difficult argument for the Italians to win in my view. What’s more, the Italian authorities are ignoring the economic value of the Bronze: Maurizio Fiorilli: Italy’s Chief Antiquities Prosecutor has said “The economic value is of little consequence. What is important is the gain Getty will derive on the ethical plane. Moral gain is the reward. Also, the monetary value of the objects is not Italy's problem. It is the problem of those who spend good money for objects that are without clear title and are illicitly removed from their place of cultural origin. It is up to the authorities in the USA who are responsible for controlling the Getty to investigate how the money was spent. Culture predisposes honesty and transparency.”

Part of the problem here is the two different ways Italy and the Getty seem to be evaluating the claim. Italy is asserting an ethical claim to the statue based on its ties to Greek culture. However, the US has a very strong sense of Greek and Roman culture as well. After all, the Supreme Court is a copy of classical architecture.

None of the 5 core values come down on Italy’s side in my view. Destruction of archaeological context is a huge problem, and one of the worst aspects of the illicit trade. However, this was a chance find, the fishermen weren’t doing anything wrong. Other objects in the Getty’s collection should certainly be returned, and the Getty has in fact agreed to return 26 objects of the contested objects. The question becomes, why is Italy insisting on the Bronze? Why are they preventing a good faith compromise here by insisting on a tenuous claim to the bronze?