A lot depends on when and where the artifacts were sold.  The 1970
UNESCO Convention on Cultural Property (which the US did not sign onto
until much later) basically agreed that the illegal removal of whatever
the individual countries defined as "cultural property" was considered
theft and needed to be returned posthaste.  Each country had their own
rules about how things could be exported legally--and most countries had
rules that there was no such thing as legally being able to remove
cultural property from their boundaries.  There were earlier conventions
too--a Berne convention rings the chimes in my mind. These earlier
conventions had a different set of signatories.

If artifacts were, for example, pulled out of the ground after the time
the US signed onto the 1970 convention, and the country defined them as
"cultural property," and had one of those very restrictive sets of
rules, then yes, purchasing it and removing it from the country is
considered theft.  Even if a private citizen wanted to sell one of their
private-collection paintings by a national artist (as happens in England
all the time) to a resident of another signatory-country, they could not
do it if the painting was considered "cultural property" and they didn't
go through all the various permissions.  Imagine if someone today
happened to privately own a Vermeer and wanted to sell it away from the
Netherlands.  I don't think the Netherlands would let that happen.

Julia Muney Moore
Public Art Administrator
Blackburn Architects, Indianapolis, IN
(317) 875-5500 x230
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Indigo Nights
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 11:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Theft or Unjust Enrichment

I suppose quite a few of you are familiar with the
tumult at the Getty and the upheavals of late.  If
you've been following their travails, you'll know that
not only Italy, but now Greece, as well, are demanding
the return of antiquities claiming they were stolen.

I don't have a good grip on all the details, but
things I have learned in the last two years are making
me question whether the story being told by the other
nations is reality or just an example of unjust
enrichment.

In the last two years, my guy and I visited both the
Hearst Castle and Ca d'zan (among the many museums
we've explored).  In both instances, what struck me
was there were precious treasures that had been moved
from homes/palaces/castles/churches (whatever) and
placed in these American mansions.  It struck me at
the time that this was such a tragedy, that riches of
yore had been plundered by wealthy Americans who
wanted to build their own castles.

My memory of what was conveyed at both locales is that
these things were purchased in the early 20th century
when Europe was very poor and had a need to sell off
such things to put bread and butter on the table. 
Americans had the money, and they paid to have the
things relocated.  There was no indication these were
or were not government sanctioned.  I was glad for the
opportunity to see them, but saddened that the
almighty dollar had been responsible in some fashion
for encouraging the destruction of antiquities.  The
liberal in me said, though, that it allowed some to
eat.

Now, fast forward to the American treasure, The Getty.
 I can't begin to say whether the allegations of the
Italians and Greek governments (and I suppose the
Egyptians won't be far behind) is true or not.  It is
entirely conceivable to me that there were
opportunists back when, who learned that Americans
would pay and pillaged for profit.  We cannot judge
the transfer of knowledge as to ownership by today's
standards, where everything is electronic and
veritably instantaneous.  Who is to say whether what
transpired was legal or illegal?  Not me.

It just strikes me that, while I would not want to be
party to theft, it would would not seem fair for these
two nations to be unjustly enriched by these events
either.  If the transfer of items was a legitimate
purchase at the time, and money crossed palms, why
would it be ok for the two countries to demand the
return of the antiquities without giving
"consideration" (read compensation) to the Getty for
the exchange, based on purchase price escalated by
today's value of money (i.e., $100 at one point being
equivalent to $100,000 today)?

This has been bugging me of late.  If the Getty is
truly guilty, so be it, return the treasures.  But if
such were not the case, and this is simply a case of
nationalism, no way, Jose.  I rather think that anyone
who is in possession of treasures that originated from
foreign (or even Native American tribes) needs to take
heed for the precedent this stands to set that could
have an impact on the many institutions.

In some ways, this post feels like the child saying
the emperor is naked.  Don't yell at me for asking; I
really want to know and look to you experts for
answers.


Indigo Nights
[log in to unmask]

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should
read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
"Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).