Illicit Cultural Property

The Grey Lady Reports on the proposed Immunity Clarification Act

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Tue, 22 May 2012 12:14:00 +0000

The paper of record gets some reactions to the Immunity Clarification Act, which would remedy an inconsistency between the Immunity from Seizure Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. I spoke with the reporter a number of weeks ago about the piece. I wrote a lengthy email discussing the law, and summarized recent cases which likely prompted the sponsors of the bill in the house and senate to act. I noted alternatives other nations have successfully used. Some of that made it into the piece, and of course the one part of the piece attributed to me was taken out of context:

Derek Fincham, an assistant professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston who specializes in cultural heritage law, said the exclusion probably also reflected the notion that the bill would be difficult to pass without an exception for Holocaust-era claims.

“To put it bluntly, how many Cambodians donate to political campaigns?” he said. “All of this goes back to political influence on a money level, which is unfortunate.”

The quote only speaks to a small part of my response to the question. I was asked why the thefts from a place like Cambodia might be treated differently in the proposed bill. I gave a number of other reasons for the Holocaust Era exception which runs from 1933-1945. I discussed the unique nature of the holocaust, the scope of the spoliation which occurred, and the Spoliation Advisory Panel in the United Kingdom which also treats the holocaust era in a unique way. I do think that cultural heritage policy, like any political decision, stems from political influence and a constituent group which makes itself known to its representatives, but that's only one part of the equation.

As I told the reporter last month when we spoke, the new bill arises because of recent cases involving two acts of congress which conflict. The first act, the immunity from seizure act bars suits which have the effect of depriving a museum the custody or control of a work of art, lent by a museum. The other act of Congress, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act has been deemed to open a window for claims, even when immunity has been granted under the Immunity from Seizure Act. The two recent cases are Magness v. Russian Federation, and Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam. In both those cases suits for the value of the paintings were allowed to continue, despite the fact that they had been granted federal immunity.

Ultimately the State Department hears a request for immunity and the lender must provide information about the history of the loaned works. The State Department is not thoroughly vetting these requests, and rather than have an exception for this or that period of spoliation, the best solution would be to avoid giving a foreign lender immunity if there is a tainted history to the object.

Doreen Carvajal, Dispute Over Bill to Protect Art Lent to Museums, The New York Times, May 21, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/arts/design/dispute-over-bill-to-protect-art-lent-to-museums.html (last visited May 22, 2012).

Footnotes

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Fri, 18 May 2012 18:57:00 +0000

The Alexander Sarcophagus in Istanbul

Of marbles and men | The Economist
Turkey is looking at its past and ramping up repatriation (politely for now). You know how the Economist will come out on this issue perhaps, but they give it away in the first paragraph by recounting the Ottoman removal from Sidon of the Alexander Sarcophagus. Repatriation targets for Turkey include practically everyone: the Met, the British Museum, "the Louvre, the Pergamon, London’s Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A), the Gulbenkian Museum in Lisbon, the Davids Samling Museum in Denmark, the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington, DC, the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Getty. It has also claimed stolen antiquities that have been seized by police in Frankfurt, Florence, Bulgaria, Switzerland and Scotland."

Roger Atwood on the new Walters Collection | chasing aphrodite

A couple of weeks ago I took a train to the handsome city of Baltimore and saw the Bourne collection in its new home. It’s a revealing show with some lovely artifacts, including some I don’t remember seeing in Santa Fe. The painted Nasca stirrup bottles (right), masterpieces of design and economy dating from about 500 CE, alone were worth the trip. Yet I came away thinking that, perhaps without realizing it, the organizers have given an object lesson in the dangers of collecting antiquities that have no record of archaeological excavation. What I wrote in Stealing History – that “not a single piece on display” in the Bourne collection “gives a specific provenance, archaeological history or other sign it emerged from any place but a looter’s pit” – remains true but needs some amending.

Crystal Bridges Museum Reviewed | C-MONSTER.net

My answer: Crystal Bridges is damn good. For one, the setting is lovely: 120 acres of Ozark forest set around a creek from which the museum takes it’s name. Two, even though Moshe Safdie’s buildings don’t exactly recede into the background, they are intriguing and work well as a museum.

Supreme Court Denies Cert | culturalpropertylaw.net
The Supreme Court has refused to hear Odyssey Marine's Appeal of the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes case.

Archaeologists accuse MoD of allowing Odyssey Marine to 'plunder' | theguardian
And more uncomfortable questions for Odyssey, this time with respect to their exploration of the HMS Victory:

The Ministry of Defence is facing a legal battle and parliamentary questions after letting a US company excavate a British 18th-century warship laden with a potentially lucrative cargo. Lord Renfrew is among leading archaeologists condemning a financial deal struck over HMS Victory, considered the world's mightiest ship when she sank in a storm in the English Channel in 1744. In return for excavating the vessel's historic remains, which may include gold and silver worth many millions of pounds, Odyssey Marine Exploration is entitled to receive "a percentage of the recovered artefacts' fair value" or "artefacts in lieu of cash".

How easy is it to steal art in Britain? | galleristny

The British have a dashed good collection of cultural artifacts in their various museums, but lately the coves have had a hell of a time hanging onto it. On Saturday evening a “nationally significant” medieval jug valued at $1.2 million was stolen from the Stockwood Discovery Centre in Luton. . .

In Egypt Turmoil, Thieves Hunt Pharaonic Treasures | AP

In a country with more than 5,000 years of civilization buried under its sands, illegal digs have long been a problem. With only slight exaggeration, Egyptians like to joke you can dig anywhere and turn up something ancient, even if its just pottery shards or a statuette. But in the security void, the treasure hunting has mushroomed, with 5,697 cases of illegal digs since the start of the anti-Mubarak uprising in early 2011— 100 times more than the previous year, according to figures obtained by The Associated Press from the Interior Ministry, which is in charge of police.

Art Crime in Film: Jø Nesbo's "Headhunter" | ARCA
Catherine discusses how well this Swedish film handles art theft. It does a pretty good job--for a movie. I give the film a thumbs up, but don't watch this for the art theft. It's a dark and bloody flick. We chuckled when Sweden's number 1 detective was also the head of their art theft unit.

Sotheby's auctions off priceless Peruvian artifact | peruthisweek

A priceless piece of Peru’s cultural heritage was put up for sale last week at Sotheby’s Auction House in New York, where it fetched $212,500. The object in question was a gold Sicán funeral mask, dating from somewhere between 950 and 1250 A.D., with its origins in the Pomac Forest region of Lambayeque. According to Sotheby’s, the mask came from the estate of Jan Mitchell. A 2009 New York Times obituary stats that Mitchell was a wealthy New York restaurateur who donated a large portion of his pre-Columbian gold collection to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Auction Houses and Credit Card Fraud

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Thu, 17 May 2012 15:50:00 +0000

The Art Newspaper reports on an interesting and widespread problem with the art market in the United Kingdom. It seems fake credit cards have been used to steal art up for auction. And as the report notes, the problem flows all the way to Bonhams and Christie's, with as many as 30 auction houses reportedly affected.

Says one anonymous auction house director:

"[The problem is that people] were buying goods over the phone and picking them up before the transaction had cleared,” says the director of one of the defrauded auction houses, who wishes to remain anonymous. “We trusted that banks would be doing checks at their end. Aside from the usual identity checks we can’t tell whether the card that people use over the phone is theirs."

It is an obvious problem, but one that has not really been discussed. If buyers are allowed to remain anonymous, it is a perfect environment for criminal intervention. Auction houses play such a crucial role in the art market, and as a consequence play an important role in the way we transfer these important parts of our collective cultural heritage. But these institutions are poorly designed to safeguard against theft, looting, forgery, and fraud.

The way in which auction houses conduct business today has been revolutionised; online, anonymous and increasingly international bidding is now commonplace. This spate of frauds, however, suggests that the art market’s financial procedures have yet to catch up.

Riah Pryor, Credit card investigation shows art market open to international fraud, The Art Newspaper, May, 2012, http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Credit+card+investigation+shows+art+market+open+to+international+fraud/26406 (last visited May 17, 2012).

ARCA Annual Conference, June 23-24, Amelia

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:21:00 +0000

In order to encourage continued awareness of the growing field of art crime and cultural heritage protection ARCA will host its fourth-annual conference in Amelia.

The interdisciplinary event brings together those who have an interest in the responsible stewardship of our collective cultural heritage. Presenters will discuss topics including:

the display and sale of looted objects;
strategies to combat the illicit trade in cultural property;
current law enforcement investigations;
and the problem of art fraud and forgery.

The conference will take place beside Amelia’s Archaeological Museum in Sala Boccarini. ARCA’s annual conference is held at the seat of our Postgraduate Certificate Program, in Amelia each summer.

Please find the conference flyer below the jump.

Annual Conference Flyer, 2012

An Interview with Nout van Woudenberg on Immunity

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Mon, 07 May 2012 09:30:00 +0000

As museums are encountering stricter restrictions for acquiring art, and as budgets for new acquisitions are tighter, many museums are looking to temporary loan agreements to augment their permanent collections.

Immunizing this art from a potential suit has been an important step lenders have asked states to provide them. But this immunity is not without critics. I caught up with Nout van Woudenberg and asked him a little bit about his new book, 'State Immunity and Cultural Objects on Loan'. He is an external researcher at the University of Amsterdam and Legal Counsel at the International Law Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Setting down to write, what was your aim with ‘State Immunity and Cultural Objects on Loan’?

Some years ago, it occurred to me that it was not clear whether States actually knew what the current state of affairs was with regard to immunity from seizure of cultural objects belonging to foreign States while on loan abroad. In 2004 the convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property had been established under auspices of the United Nations, addressing, among other things, immunity for cultural State property on loan. But that convention has not yet entered into force. I thus considered it necessary to investigate whether another rule of international law was already applicable: a rule of customary international law. After all, that rule would be binding upon States, without necessarily becoming a party to a convention.

And so I did: I investigated whether a rule of customary international law exists, to the effect that cultural objects belonging to foreign States are immune from seizure while on loan to another State for a temporary exhibition. And if such a rule does not yet exist, is it emerging? And if such a rule does exist, what are its limitations? It is my aim that my study, and consequently this book, can provide more clarity and legal certainty in the field of lending and borrowing cultural State property. But there is more: the book describes the national legislation of States, reflects opinions of States, lists what kind of guarantees States are likely to give, provides academic views, and so on. I thus hope not only to bring clarity in the field of international law, but also hope that this book is considered to have a certain encyclopedic value in regard to relevant State practice.

When did nations first start asking for immunity for their art? How have the reasons for granting this immunity changed, if at all?

It is my impression that the very first request came from the former Soviet Union in the middle of the 1960s. The catalyst was an imminent exchange between a Soviet museum and the University of Richmond, US, in which the latter sought to import several cultural objects that had been expropriated by the Soviet Government from art collectors. The Soviet Union asked for a grant of immunity from seizure, as protection against former Soviet citizens claiming title to the cultural objects, a condition of the loan. As a result of the immunity from seizure request, the United States was the first country to introduce immunity from seizure legislation in 1965.

Since then, the issue of immunity from seizure for travelling cultural objects has become more and more a concern for States and museums. This is mainly due to an increasing number of legal disputes over the ownership of cultural objects, particularly as a result of claims made by heirs to those objects expropriated by Communist regimes in Eastern Europe as well as Holocaust-related claims. But there may be disputes other than ownership disputes which result in attempts to seize a cultural object, and that phenomenon is more recent: for instance when an individual or a company is of the opinion that the owner of the cultural object on loan owes a debt (not necessarily related to the cultural object) to the claimant, and this claimant has concerns regarding the enforcement of a judgment or arbitration award in the State of residence of the owner. An example is the 2005 Noga case in Switzerland, where the company Noga asserted that it was a creditor of the Russian Federation, and the 2011 Diag Human case in Austria, where the company Diag Human argued that it was a creditor of the Czech Republic. One last remark in regard to your question: one might wonder whether we need to speak about granting immunity. After all, in the Swiss Noga case, and the Austrian Diag Human case, the Swiss federal authorities and the Viennese court respectively, have ordered that on the basis of customary international law, the cultural State property on loan was immune from seizure. Many other States are of this opinion as well, as I show in my book. They sometimes count on the general rule of customary international law that State property in use or intended for use for government non-commercial purposes is immune from measures of constraint, but a considerable number of States also count on the existence of a specific rule of international law immunizing cultural State property on loan. If this line is to be followed, there is no situation of granting immunity (actively doing something), but the immunity from seizure merely applies.

The cover of your book uses Portrait of Wally a painting which was granted immunity in New York State court but was eventually seized in Federal Court by US Attorneys. What is your reaction to the result in that case?

First of all, I would like to thank the Leopold Museum in Vienna to allow me to use this image for the cover of my book. Now in regard to the case: the fact that the case lasted approximately twelve years, in combination with the fact that the case and the judgment went back and forth several times, gives sufficient indication for stating that it regarded a complex and not very clear-cut case. Although it regarded a painting seemingly forcibly sold by Lea Bondi at the beginning of WW II, the US court case focused very much on the question of what Dr. Leopold knew or ought to know when he acquired the painting in 1954. In the end, it came to an amicable settlement, and that should be applauded and respected. We now may be able to say that both the Museum and the Bondi Estate are “winners” as they came to terms with each other. However, the fact that the case lasted that long, and that the outcome went back and forth repeatedly, is not very helpful in promoting the certainty which is necessary in the field of international art loans. Also the Museum as well as the Bondi Estate had to go through a lot during these years of litigation.

What are your thoughts on immunity generally? Is it a useful tool to allow for the movement of art?

Absolutely. But let me limit myself to immunity for cultural State property on loan. Basically, the reason for providing cultural objects with immunity from seizure is to prevent cultural objects on loan from being used as ‘hostages’ in trade and/or ownership disputes. Immunity from seizure can serve as a means to overcome the reluctance of lenders to send their cultural objects temporarily abroad. We also have to keep in mind that many States have committed themselves through international legal instruments to supporting the exchange of cultural objects. It can be said that nowadays there is a well-established and universally shared interest to protect and enhance the international cooperation of museums and other cultural institutions. Moreover, in the literature, links have been made between cultural objects and diplomatic relations: international art loans can symbolize and foster these diplomatic relations.

Cultural objects can break the ice of misunderstandings and can be the first steps in new bilateral ties. They are sometimes referred to as ‘good will ambassadors’. Immunity from seizure facilitates inter-State art loans. That background may serve as a proper explanation why immunity from seizure for cultural State property on loan is understandable. In relation to this, I would also like to refer to the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. On 2 December 2004, the UN General Assembly adopted the convention by consensus. It has not entered into force yet, but a considerable number of States consider the convention as a reflection of customary international law. Part IV of the 2004 UN Convention regards State immunity from seizure. It provides in general, but subject to certain limitations, for the immunity of a State from all forms of seizure in respect of its property or property in its possession or control. This part of the convention also contains an article where State property is listed which shall not be considered as commercial property. Consequently, this property is immune from seizure (unless the State to which the property belongs has explicitly consented to seizure or has allocated the property for the satisfaction of the connected claim). The relevant article, Article 21, aims to secure the protection for certain specific categories of property. One of the five categories of property reads “property forming part of an exhibition of objects of scientific, cultural or historical interest and not placed or intended to be placed on sale.” State-owned exhibits for industrial or commercial purposes are not covered by this category. It should be borne in mind that the gist of Article 21, and especially the cultural category, has neither been disputed during the negotiations. In my view, the fact that cultural objects can be important for the identity of a State, the fact that cultural objects may help to understand the culture, history and development of a State, as well as the fact that cultural objects can be used as a means in the promotion of international cultural exchanges (codified in several international agreements) and the strengthening of bilateral or multilateral diplomatic relations, makes it fair to consider these cultural objects on loan as a category of protected State property. Consequently, I do not consider it awkward to mention cultural State property on loan in one breath with one of those ‘classical’ categories of protected objects, such as military property, diplomatic property or property of the central bank of a State (and that is exactly what the 2004 UN Convention did).

What are the biggest problems you have found with respect to immunized art? Are there reforms you can suggest?

In regard to immunity from seizure for cultural State property on loan, important questions are: “what is a State?” and “what is to be considered as State property?” Answering these questions is not always easy. Different national and international legal instruments each follow their own approach in regard to the definition of a State. It can also depend on the acts performed by an agency or instrumentality of a State whether or not it falls under the definition of a State (or whether or not it enjoys the same immunity as the State). In practice, this can mean that it is up to national courts to consider whether in an actual situation an organ or entity can be identified as falling under the definition of a State. In most jurisdictions, a State museum will not fall under the definition of a State. However, that does not mean that the cultural objects housed in that State museum are subject to seizure by definition. Immunized State property would be broader than solely property that is owned by a State. Under the aforementioned 2004 UN Convention, property owned by the State and property in its possession or control would most likely be covered by the immunity provisions, although the exact scope has not yet been determined in practice. Although there is no specific definition of State property in the 2004 UN Convention, I come to this conclusion based on the history of negotiations and the reports of the International Law Commission. Generally speaking, based on my investigation, it would be fair to say that in any case property that is State-owned or of which the State serves as a custodian or has a right of disposal would fall under the immunity. And here we come to the second part of your question: the fact that immunity from seizure does not only apply to cultural objects on loan owned by a State, but also to objects possessed or controlled by a State, can make the application of the rule in practice somewhat complicated; it may be necessary to determine on a case by case basis whether a cultural institution should be considered as falling under the notion of a State (which will mostly not be the case), and whether in the actual situation it is the State which either owns, possesses or controls the objects concerned. As a result, it may be possible that loans between lending and borrowing institutions have to be considered differently, with regard to possible immunity. After all, a cultural institution can house objects which are owned by a State, a State may be able to exercise control over other objects, and some objects may not have a link with the State at all. A future global convention on immunity from seizure for all kinds of cultural property on loan, regardless whether it regards State property or private property, may solve such a situation. The International Law Association is currently assessing whether such a convention may possibly be viable, however, the assessment is still in its embryonic stage (the underlying discussion paper has been prepared by Prof. Th. M. de Boer and me). A convention like that may provide more legal security, but also raises new questions such as a possible overlap or discrepancy with the 2004 UN Convention.

Many in the United States are hesitant to offer an opinion on immunity, particularly with respect to a proposed clarification to current U.S. practice moving through the U.S. Congress. I think this may be because immunity has increasingly been conflated with preventing justice. Do you think immunity prevents claimants from achieving a just result for their claim to a work of art?

It occurred to me that several pending cases before a US court regard cultural property which is not on loan in the US, but is, and has been, in the ‘State of origin’. To name a few cases of past and present: the Altmann case, the Cassirer case, the Herzog case and the Popper case. Here we are not talking about immunity from seizure, but immunity from jurisdiction. And also in the Malewicz case, plaintiffs did not try to seize the cultural objects which were on loan to two US museums.

The question what a ‘just result’ may be, will be answered differently by different people. But I have to sympathize with a Statement of Interest of the US in the Malewicz case. The heirs were there, in the view of the US authorities, “using the window of opportunity afforded by the Malewicz exhibition[s] as the jurisdictional hook for their claims”.

The Executive Branch stated: “if jurisdiction over a sovereign lender could be established solely by virtue of introduction into the United States of an exhibit immunized under section 2459, foreign States would be far less likely to agree to share their artwork with the American public, undermining the principal objective of section 2459” and “a finding of no jurisdiction in this case would merely prevent claimants from transforming into a sword what was intended to be only a shield.” From the perspective of international art loans, I have to admit that, in general, I have difficulties to agree with the idea that the presence of the objects (for the purpose of exhibition) in the jurisdiction of the borrowing State might provide a jurisdictional hook enabling the court in the borrowing State to exercise jurisdiction over the acts of a lending State. Even more, as domestic remedies often have not been exhausted.

In regard to immunity from seizure, I have to recall that on February 3rd, 2012, the International Court of Justice was not at all hesitant to offer an opinion on immunity; it confirmed in the case Germany v. Italy that State property with a government non-commercial purpose, is immune from immunity from seizure unless the State which owns the property has expressly consented to the taking of the seizure or that that State has allocated the property in question for the satisfaction of a judicial claim.

Finally with regard to the current US draft legislation, which aims to make the relationship between the FSIA and the IFSA clearer: I do think that the content of this legislation confirms the main conclusions of my study: I come to the conclusion that indeed a relatively young rule of customary international law exists, although not yet firmly established or well defined in all its aspects, stating that cultural objects belonging to foreign States and on temporary loan for an exhibition are immune from seizure. However, an important remark needs to be made in that regard: in order to be considered as a rule of customary law, a rule needs to be based, among other things, on a widespread, representative and virtually uniform practice of States (as well as opinio juris). With regard to some categories of cultural State property, this wide, virtually uniform acceptance is absent. The most important category regards cultural objects plundered during armed conflict. Based on my study, I would say that, generally speaking, the main sentiment among States is that such objects should not deserve protection. Although not legally but certainly morally binding, many States subscribed to the 1998 Washington Principles on Holocaust Era Assets, the 2000 Vilnius Declaration on Holocaust Era Looted Cultural Assets and the 2009 Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets and Related Issues. Moreover, several States established Restitution or Spoliation Committees in order to restitute cultural objects to heirs of World War II victims. Also the draft legislation which is currently under assessment of the US Senate confirms the immunity for cultural property on loan, unless it regards cultural property illicitly taken during the Holocaust.

Italian Court Confirms Seizure of "Getty Bronze"

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:27:00 +0000

The Getty received some very bad news Thursday.

Jason Felch reports on a ruling by an Italian regional magistrate in Pesaro upholding an earlier ruling to seize the bronze statue.

The ruling Thursday by a regional magistrate in Pesaro will likely prolong the legal battle over the statue, a signature piece of the Getty's embattled antiquities collection whose return Italian authorities have sought for years. "This was the news we were waiting for," said Gian Mario Spacca, president of the Marche region where the statue was hauled ashore in 1964, in an interview with Italian reporters. "Now we will resume contacts made with the Getty Museum to build a positive working relationship." Spacca visited the Getty last year hoping to negotiate an agreement to share the statue. But the Getty has made clear it will fight in court to keep the piece and is expected to appeal the ruling to Italy's highest court.

Using a domestic court to seek the seizure of an illegally exported object from another country has not been attempted before. But Italy has been at the forefront of repatriation strategies. This novel approach could lead to a new legal tool for nations of origin to pursue, if it can convince the Attorney General and a U.S. District Court to enforce this seizure order. The Getty appealed the earlier ruling, and they did so for a reason, this case could set a precedent which would open up museums to seizure suits in the nation of origin.

It should be interesting to watch this dispute continue. For background on this dispute, see here.

Jason Felch, Italian court upholds claim on Getty bronze, L.A. Times, May 4, 2012, http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-getty-bronze-ruling-20120504,0,2759444.story (last visited May 5, 2012).

Destruction and Looting in Syria

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Thu, 03 May 2012 13:50:00 +0000

AP Photo of destruction in Homs

There are increasing reports of destruction in Syria. Sites like Krak des Chavaliers, Palmyra, Elba, and historic buildings in Homs are all at risk. Government forces in some cases are shelling civilian areas—the Citadel of Al Madeeq has been shelled, with a tragic result for the site and for the inhabitants.

The AP describes the damage: "shells thudded into the walls of the 12th century al-Madeeq Citadel, raising flames and columns of smoke as regime forces battled with rebels in March. The bombardment punched holes in the walls, according to online footage of the fighting."

There are reports of looting, including some by government forces and others. Rodrigo Martin, an archaeologist who has worked in Syria describes some of the destruction:

We have facts showing that the government is acting directly against the country's historical heritage,. . . What we know . . . Syrian heritage has already provided a huge quantity of information, but we can safely say that the part that has not yet been studied is even bigger,. . . [the destruction] is like burning a page in the book of history of mankind.

This kind of damage, which approaches intentional destruction similar to the destruction of the Buddhas at Bamiyan will be difficult to prevent. With respect to the looting and damage being done, sadly there are not a whole lot of good options the heritage community can call for, apart from a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and renewed vigilance in the marketplace to watch out for the kinds of objects which looters may be taking from Syria.

Syria’s Cultural Treasures Latest Uprising Victim, NPR.org, May 1, 2012, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=151783292 (last visited May 3, 2012).

Arrests in the Fitzwilliam Theft

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Wed, 02 May 2012 23:05:00 +0000

There are reports that between two and six individuals have been arrested in connection with the theft of 18 Chinese objects from the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. The theft was the subject of BBC's Crimewatch Tuesday:

The stolen pieces had been given as gifts or bequests to the museum, with some experts estimating the artifacts to be worth approximately £18 million (about $28.7 million Cdn). None of the artifacts has been recovered. Police sought help from the public through a segment on the BBC-TV program Crimewatch on Tuesday evening. The show aired closed-circuit camera footage of four suspects sought in conjunction with the robbery.

As Dick Ellis explained in an interview last week, these thieves probably saw the booming trade in Chinese artworks, and may not have understood how difficult an eventual sale would be. Much in the same way similar objects were stolen from the Durham museum.

Noah Charney speculated last week that the stolen objects will be "smuggled [to China] . . . for in China the general rules about not purchasing art without performing Due Diligence and checking stolen art databases do not apply. Provenance is far less of an issue, sometimes for cultural reasons, but also for practical ones–Internet black-outs mean that many in China could not check stolen art databases, even if they were inclined to do so." I'm not sure that will be the case.

The Chinese have—on paper at least—the most regulated art market in the world, with a tiered series of regulation. It is one of the only sets of regulations which puts direct regulation in the art market, at the point of sale. Are there problems and corruption? Perhaps. But what art market—whether its in Rome, Paris, London, or New York is not corrupt?

In 2002, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress passed the Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics. The 2002 Law legalizes private transactions involving cultural relics in five circumstances, (1) legal inheritance or gift; (2) purchase from cultural relics shops; (3) purchase from cultural relics auction enterprises; (4) exchanges or transfers between individual citizens; and (5) other methods authorized by the central government. Many of these transactions take place at officially sanctioned cultural relics shops and auction enterprises; and the 2002 Law prohibits a cultural relic shop from running an auction and vice versa.

Under Article 58, the government may buy any cultural relic submitted to a mandatory inspection before sale pursuant to Article 56. During this mandatory inspection, under Article 56, the government is given a kind of right of first refusal, with the purchase price determined by the government representative. Pursuant to article 57, in the event of a sale to a private individual, a report is produced, effectively tracking the buyers and sellers of cultural objects. This new regulatory framework seems a very aggressive strategy, and one that, if implemented effectively, could positively impact the illicit trade in China. However, implementing this strategy may be difficult and subject to corruption. And yet by recording who buys what, it may be possible not only to track the chain of title of specific cultural objects, but also to evaluate whether individuals are routinely buying and selling stolen, looted, or suspicious objects. What other nation does this routinely? Perhaps the Italian Carabinieri, but that may be it.

Many in the West have an immediate reaction to all things China. And I think that quote above does not really convey the reality of the Chinese art market. Prof. Paul Bator remarked in 1983 that China was the great under-researched area of the world when it comes to sources of heritage theft (he called it art theft). Despite s few reports, that is still the case. We can blame the Chinese for other problems perhaps, but the Chinese art market does not I think bear the collective guilt for the Fitzwilliam theft. Rather it seems to be a more homegrown set of thieves from East London.

He Shuzhong, Protection of China’s Cultural Heritage, 5 J. Art, Antiquity & L., 19 (2000).
J. David Murphy, Plunder and preservation : cultural property law and practice in the People’s Republic of China, (1995), http://www.bcin.ca/Interface/openbcin.cgi?submit=submit&Chinkey=204154 (last visited May 2, 2012).
Andrew Jacobs, China Hunts for Art Treasures in U.S. Museums, The New York Times, December 17, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/world/asia/17china.html?_r=2&hp (last visited Dec 17, 2009).
Peter Foster, China to study British Museum for looted artefacts, Telegraph.co.uk, October 19, 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/6374959/China-to-study-British-Museum-for-looted-artefacts.html (last visited Oct 20, 2009).

Byrne on the role of preservation in urban development

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:52:00 +0000

Prof. Peter Byrne has posted Historic Preservation and its Cultured Despisers: Reflections on the Contemporary Role of Preservation Law in Urban Development on SSRN. The piece has a thoughtful discussion of historic preservation. He argues convincingly that the "cultural heritage conveyed by a community's historic buildings is a public good, the value of which is not fully internalized in property rights . . . [r]egulation may be done well or poorly, but regulation must exist." He puts Edward Glaeser's breathless appreciation for Houston's development policies in context, well worth a read.

Footnotes

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:36:00 +0000

Another wall collapsed in Pompei, and though an additional $140 million in funding has been approved for the site, another unfair report of Italian cultural resource management in the British press.
A new dispute in San Diego County over 10,000-year-old human remains. An attorney representing UC San Diego, James McManis, may want to choose his words with more care than these: “The idea that we’re going to turn this incredible treasure over to some local tribe because they think it’s grandma’s bones is crazy.”
Put some drugs (or art) on the damn table: Making a case is hard, it takes funding, institutional commitment, and takes much longer than a simple seizure. Veteran police and prosecutors know this, and sometimes voice criticism over showy returns and recoveries that don't build a case or actually target and take down criminal networks. Rick St. Hilaire has a great discussion of Homeland Security's "seize and send" policy which sent a number of seized objects back to Italy this week.
Art stolen in 1976, now recovered, will be sold at Sotheby's on May 17.
The art of patent applications.
A "looted" stelae goes on display in Detroit (previously discussed here).
Is there a "best Scream"?
A roundup of Fisk's victory: "The Collection will now disappear into the private home of an anonymous Russian oligarch, never to be seen ... "

Ellis on the Cambridge Theft

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:40:00 +0000

Some of the objects taken from the Fitzwilliam on April 13

Dick Ellis can always be relied on to provide a sensible commentary on a recent theft. Speaking to the Cambridge-news he argues it is unlikely that the thieves stole the objects to order. The 18 stolen objects were taken from the Fitzwilliam museum, and as always the trick is not the stealing, it is selling or profiting off the theft. Ellis notes to the BBC:

Almost certainly, in my opinion, the museum was targeted in the same way as we saw thieves target rhino horns when their price went through the roof. They have an appreciation that in the last couple of years the Chinese art market has now outstripped the United States and European art markets to become the premier art market in the world.The thought is that if you steal some quality items - and you will find quality items in museum collections - you can sell them on to a Chinese market that has an insatiable appetite for this sort of thing.

Conference: "Cross-border movement of cultural goods" May 19, 2012 in Athens

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:07:00 +0000

The Hellenic Society for Law and Archaeology and the Institut fur Kunst und recht are putting together a conference at the Acropolis Museum in Athens in a few week on May 19th 2012. The conference aims:

to examine the need of reforming the existing legal framework on international, European and national level and to offer proposals to take a closer look at:
the legal trends and the challenges they create for member states
the strengths and deficiencies of the two major international conventions as well as the regulations of European and national law
to discuss the legal reforms currently underway in European Law
to present and examine case studies from Greece, Switzerland, Germany, Austria
to network and exchange ideas with leading professionals

It looks to be a promising event, and what a setting for a law and archaeology conference. I note with interest that there appears to be efforts to revisit the 1995 UNIDROIT and the 1970 UNESCO Conventions soon.

Conference: The Social Construction of Illegality

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:01:00 +0000

The Royal Museum for Central Africa (Tervuren), the Free University Brussels and the University of Leuven are organizing an international conference in October titled "Norms in the Margins and Margins of the Norm: the Social Construction of Illegality" October 25-27 in Belgium.

The international conference Norms in the Margins and Margins of the Norm. The social Construction of Illegality aims at fostering a cross-disciplinary debate on everyday practice seen as systems of practical norms in realms more commonly considered from a legal or moral standpoint. Political scientists, jurists, historians, sociologists and social anthropologists will exchange their views on interactions between normative systems produced by official actors such as States or international organizations and those systems of norms informing the actions of actors thriving in the margins of official categories. Official categories emerge as highly political creations, while powerlessness in the margin reveals itself as relative. Market oriented economy intertwines with underground networks and these interconnections produce implicit norms that are also produced in the loopholes of law in various spheres of societies. These themes will be analysed through case studies bearing on traffics in art, drugs, organs, etc as well as on corruption, the cultural production of rules, etc.

Support for the Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:53:00 +0000

Rick St. Hilaire has a detailed discussion supporting S.2212:

The proposed bill clarifies the spirit of a federal law in force for over 35 years, but weakened in the last few years. Congress in 1965 passed IFSA (formally known as the Immunity from Seizure Under Judicial Process of Cultural Objects Imported for Temporary Exhibition or Display). Lawmakers passed it because they wanted to promote the importation of art. They wanted to let foreign art lenders know with certainty that their cultural works would not become entangled in litigation once on American soil.

Footnotes

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:06:00 +0000

Krak des Chevaliers, a crusader castle in Syria is at risk

The conflict in Syria has produced predictable damage to that nations heritage, including the armed occupation of fortresses, looting of sites, chipping away of mosaics, and other acts of cultural destruction.
A well-reasoned case for the return of the Nefertiti bust.
Turkey would like these objects returned from the Getty.
Heritage sites in Mali are at risk according to UNESCO.
The discovery rule and Steven Spielberg prevail in the Ninth Circuit.
A Nazi-era restitution.
Fund Italian culture or else.
It seems the attention being paid to the ongoing looting at El-Hibeh has caused Egyptian authorities to take action.
18 jade objects stolen from Cambridge's Fitzwilliam Museum.

The Immunity from Seizure Act and the proposed clarification in the Senate

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:03:00 +0000

One of the Nazi-era works at issue in Malewicz, titled Suprematism 18th Construction, by Kazimir Malevich

Legislation which would have an impact on the lending of foreign artworks is currently moving through both the House and the Senate. The Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act would remedy an inconsistency between two laws. The first act, the Immunity from Seizure Act bars suits which infringe on the custody or control of a museum while they are loaning the work of art. The other act, the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act has opened the door for some claims, even when immunity has been granted under the Immunity from Seizure Act.

Two recent cases which highlight this are Magness v. Russian Federation, and Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam. In both those cases suits for the monetary value of the paintings were allowed to continue, despite the fact that they had been granted federal immunity. The proposed law seems to be a sound and reasonable accommodation for the recent conflict between these two statutes. However some have claimed that this would preclude certain claims in Federal Court. This strikes me as troubling because the State Department hears a request for immunity and the parties have to provide detailed information about the history of the loaned works. The implication is that the State Department is not thoroughly vetting these requests, and that when the works arrive in the United States unsuspecting lending museums, who may have been unaware they had a work of art subject to a claim, may be hauled into court, after they were given guarantees that this wouldn't happen. A grant of immunity is issued by the State Department, which has the responsibility for checking that there is no potential claim to the work of art. I find it curious that many of the same groups expressing anxiety about the clarification (like the LCCHP here in this brief press release) advocate for State Department involvement in US import restrictions via the Cultural Property Advisory Panel. It seems to me that if we entrust the State Department with regulating imposition of import restrictions, why are they unable to research the history of an object entering the US for a temporary loan. And for me that makes bad law and bad policy. Foreign lenders perhaps should give up title to some of these contested objects, but claimants waiting in the wings and springing a lawsuit on a lending museum will lead to fewer art loans, and will end up limiting those temporary exhibitions anyway. What we have is a cultural embargo on works of art which may be the subject of a Nazi-era claim.

Art is a good ambassador, and the exchange of art is an admirable goal. Aggressive repatriation litigation, particularly after a foreign museum has been told it will not be sued in Federal Court, by the State Department, sets a troubling precedent and will certainly restrict number and quality of works of art museum visitors will see in loaned exhibitions. Remedying Holocaust-era wrongs is a worthy goal, but piercing immunity produces uncertainty for museums and current possessors of art. A better system would negotiate and recommend returns or compensation via something like the Spoliation Advisory Panel in the United Kingdom. Most interesting of all, the proposed clarification does not even attempt to remedy potential difficulties with Nazi-era disputes which arose between 1933-1945. Holocaust-era claims gained in number in the 1990's with a number of important efforts and writers focusing attention on the issue. It is an example that many museum-goers are aware of. We all know the Nazi's looted art and forced victims into selling or leaving behind their art collections. The legal precedents created in holocaust-era claims also can be applied to other periods of taking like the Bolshevik Revolution and the Cambodian conflict, and in fact we are seeing courts examine the taking of objects during those periods as well. The Holocaust repatriation movement has the benefit of a growing number of advocates who are actively networking with repatriation attorneys, auction houses, and art historians to aggressively pursue claims. However the cost of this litigation is restricted movement of art, and increasing silence on the part of museums in Europe and North America. Holocaust victims should have their rights vindicated, but a courtroom adversarial process is not always the best remedy for past injustices.

Speaking out about fakes

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:28:00 +0000

Elegy to the Spanish Republic No. 110, Robert Motherwell 1971

Jack Flam, currently working on a catalogue raisonné of Robert Motherwell talks about the backwards incentives by members of the public and scholars when it comes to authenticating art. Highly recommended, it puts all the discussion of fakes and forgeries in the context of what experts and the market are not doing to prevent fakes from polluting the pool of art in private collections and in the public trust:

These market circumstances have unfortunately coincided with a situation in which scholars and foundations that make decisions about authenticity feel increasingly constrained by legal threats from people who own or are selling fakes. So while the number of fakes in the marketplace is dramatically increasing, an important means for assuring the veracity of artists’ works has been disappearing. Several scholars and foundations are ceasing to authenticate works because they are afraid of lawsuits, and such fears have even constrained the way scholars communicate with each other.
Back in 2008, after the Motherwell catalogue raisonné project suspected that a number of “Spanish Elegy” paintings were forgeries, I had ample occasion to observe how pressure can be effectively put on scholars who believe a painting is inauthentic in order to constrain them from saying so publicly. When I contacted scholars who were engaged in research on some of the other artists whose works were supposed to be in Rosales’s collection, many declined to discuss their opinions about those works; and the ones who did so usually insisted on speaking off the record.
It was not until injured parties came forward—that is, people who had spent significant amounts of money on works that did not pass the scrutiny of either connoisseurship or forensic testing—and the press picked up the story that scholars became (cautiously) more open about what they thought of those works.

Jack Flam, Break the silence over fakes, The Art Newspaper, April 12, 2012, http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Break-the-silence-over-fakes/26124 .

Durham University Archaeology Society Conference 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:29:00 +0000

I have been forwarded on a conference announcement for an upcoming event at Durham University. It looks to be a promising event.

Durham University Archaeology Society Conference 2012
Title: Whose Past? An Interdisciplinary debate on the repatriation of artefacts and reburial of human remains
When: Saturday April 28th 2012- 09:00-18:00

Where: Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, Dawson Building, Durham University Science Site
Durham University Archaeology Society is to hold a one day interdisciplinary conference, to be held at Durham University involving the Archaeology, Anthropology, Philosophy and Law departments from Durham and Newcastle University and selected guest speakers. This year’s theme ‘Whose Past’ aims to generate a stimulating debate about the ownership and ethical principles associated with two types of archaeological material; artefacts and human remains, with the focus on the repatriation of artefacts and reburial of human remains.

The day will be divided into two sessions themed based first on Artefacts, then on Human Remains. Each session will follow the same format- where a debate question is set and the two guest speakers argue one in proposition and the other in opposition. Each session will contain a mixture of archaeologists, anthropologists, philosophers and lawyers, who will provide their viewpoint, and then finally there is an open discussion for attendees to debate the theme and issues raised within the session. At the end of the day a conference conclusion debate will be held where conclusions will be drawn relating to the key themes and questions. In recent years the ethics and ownership of artefacts and human remains have entered the spotlight. The debate regarding the ownership of artefacts came under fire in the United Kingdom, due to the Crosby Garrett Helmet. The British museum is under increasing pressure to repatriate its most controversial artefacts including the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, the Rosetta Stone and the Mold Gold Cape to name just a few. The conference will explore issues raised relating to this example such as legislation relating to artefacts, repatriation, and stewardship/custodianship- should artefacts and human remains be kept for scientific research or given back to the indigenous community?

The repatriation of artefacts will be the key theme in the first session, with the debate question: ‘Western
museums should take a sympathetic view to requests for the repatriation of cultural artefacts’. The repatriation of human remains has also been in the spotlight due to a number of recent cases including the repatriation of human remains from the Natural History Museum to the Torres Straits in March 2011, Namibian skulls from Germany in October 2011. The mummified Maori heads from France are expected to be repatriated in
January 2012 and back in 2006 British Museum repatriated human ashes back to Tasmania.

In August 2011, the druid King Arthur Pendragon had his case for the human remains found at Stonehenge, to be reburied immediately, rejected by the High Court. This legal case is the latest threat to burial archaeology including the legislative changes in 2008 which archaeologists argue is causing "severe damage to research and the advancement of knowledge". The session will explore the issues including the treatment of the dead and reburial.

The debate question for the human remains session will be: ‘The recent legislative changes relating to human
remains are a threat to academic research’.

Jamie Davies
Durham University Archaeology Society Vice President
March 2012

Cezanne Recovered in Serbia

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:00:00 +0000

Boy in the Red Vest, Cezanne

There are reports today that one of the works stolen from the Emil Buehrle Collection in Zurich has been recovered in Serbia. ARCA's blog has a good rundown of the current press reports. The work was stolen in 2008 along with 3 others.

The BBC report notes:

Authorities have not named the painting, but local media have reported it is The Boy in the Red Vest, which was taken from Zurich's Emil Buehrle Collection. Police said three people had been arrested in connection with the theft. It added an art expert was being flown in to confirm the authenticity of the 1888 painting, worth $109m (£68.3m).

Report that Federal Agents will seize Khmer Statue from Sotheby's

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 23:23:00 +0000

It looks like the attention drawn to Sotheby's auction of this Koh Ker statue will result in Federal seizure of the statue:

Federal agents in New York on Wednesday moved to seize a thousand-year-old Cambodian statue from Sotheby’s, alleging in a civil complaint that Sotheby’s had put the 10th-century figure of a mythological warrior up for auction despite knowing that it had been stolen from a temple. Investigators said the sandstone statue, whose return is being sought by Cambodia and which is valued at $2 million to $3 million, would be impounded on Thursday by agents from the United States Department of Homeland Security. The statue, consigned to Sotheby’s for sale by a Belgian collector, had been set for auction in New York in March 2011 but was abruptly pulled from the market at the last minute after Cambodia claimed ownership. At the time Sotheby’s rejected Cambodia’s efforts to recover the Khmer antiquity, insisting there was no proof that it had been looted and therefore the auction was legal. But in a series of internal e-mail exchanges obtained by investigators and included in the federal complaint filed Wednesday in United States District Court in New York, at least one Sotheby’s officer is depicted as having been told in 2010 by a scholar in Cambodian art that Cambodian officials considered the statue a looted artifact.

With evidence that Sotheby's was told the statue had been looted, the Federal agents have a powerful piece of evidence they did not have in the Ka Nefer Nefer case. I would expect the unnamed Belgian collector who put the statue up for consignment to consider relinquishing the statue quickly. If it was purchased in good faith, he or she has a good claim against the dealer they bought it from. How long new before the Norton Simon is pressured to return its version of the statue?

Ralph Blumenthal & Tom Mashberg, Ancient Cambodian Statue Is Seized From Sotheby’s, The New York Times, April 4, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/arts/design/ancient-cambodian-statue-is-seized-from-sothebys.html (last visited Apr 4, 2012).

US Government's Claim to Ka Nefer Nefer Mask Dismissed

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 23:07:00 +0000

The Ka Nefer Nefer Mask will be staying in St. Louis for now

The Ka Nefer Nefer mask, subject of two lawsuits in federal court, seems likely to stay in St. Louis for the near future. On Monday the U.S. District Court dismissed the U.S. Government's forfeiture claim for the mask, as Rick St. Hilaire reported. The St. Luis Art Museum also has a parallel declaratory judgment action seeking to prevent the government from pursuing a forfeiture in the future.

You can generally read the tea leaves in the first few lines of a court opinion, and when the court wrote "the Government boldly states that it seeks the forfeiture of all rights, title and interest in a 3,200 year old Egyptian Mask . . ." you have a pretty good idea that the U.S. attorney was not able to convince the court to forfeit the mask. It most certainly was involved in a crime, yet the government was unable to allege enough "circumstances" surrounding the mask's journey from Saqqara in Egypt in 1952 to the antiquities market some time later.

The government undercooked its legal analysis of the illegal activities giving rise to a forfeiture in its first forfeiture attempt here. For now it may amend its complaint. If it does, it should perhaps note that Egypt has laws establishing ownership of its antiquities, and there is no set of circumstances under which this mask could have rightfully left Egypt. Perhaps noting that may lead to a different result this time around.

The Government cannot simply rest on its laurels and believe that it can initiate a civil forfeiture proceeding on the basis of one bold assertion that because something went missing from one party in 1973 and turned up with another party in 1998, it was therefore stolen and/or imported or exported illegally.

The court was concerned that the government failed to establish precisely how the mask became stolen property. There is plenty of precedent on point for this legal principle, but the lawyers for the government failed to include enough of it in the complaint. Now the U.S. attorneys will have to return to the drawing board and establish a firmer legal framework for the illegal removal of the mask from Egypt. Making the government's task more difficult, is the lack of evidence provided to them by Egypt establishing how and when the mask was stolen. As a consequence, if I was working on the case, I'd essentially treat it like an antiquities looting case. The theft itself is lost to history. But you don't need those facts, just enough to put the burden back on the museum's case to show how far back its chain of title can go.

The museum will likely respond that it had no reason to believe the Aboutaam brothers were antiquities dealers to avoid in 1998. Was it established that they routinely dealt in looted objects in 1998, even if that can be established now? The SLAM conducted a search, and while certainly not ideal, it posed questions to officials in Egypt. For lots of background on the mask, see here.

We can ask whether the Museum should do the right thing, but the government attorneys had an opportunity to force them to and failed to allege enough concrete circumstances in its complaint to trigger what would have been a very uncomfortable forfeiture proceeding for the museum—one that coupled with reasonable public pressure exerted by Egypt would have certainly made continued possession of the mask in St. Louis untenable.

Lee Rosenbaum has posted a .pdf of the opinion:
Ka-Nefer-Nefer Opinion

Landis and Forgery at the University of Cincinatti

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:00:00 +0000

A forged work by Mark Landis

This is not your typical April 1 prank. Curators at the University of Cincinnati have put together a super show "Faux Real" examining Mark Landis, the man who has fooled many medium and small museums into accepting donations of his forged works.

Lisa Cornwell writing for the AP:

Landis creates works in oil, watercolor, pastels, chalk, ink and pencil, making most of his copies from museum or auction catalogs that provide dimensions and information on the originals. He sometimes bestows gifts under different names, such as the Father Arthur Scott alias used at Hilliard. In that case, he told officials that his dead mother had left works including Curran's oil-on-wood painting "Three Women" and that he was donating it in her memory. . . . The Faux Real show will run through May 20 at the Dorothy W. and C. Lawson Reed Jr. Gallery. It depicts famous art forgers, details of how Landis made some donations and ways of detecting fakes. Visitors can view some works under ultraviolet light that causes sections to glow if they contain contemporary ingredients. Art experts say not accepting payment for his forgeries has helped keep Landis from being charged with a crime. Museum officials say forgeries can hurt their reputation and cost time and money researching suspected fraud.

He presents a challenge for prosecutors and the small museums he donates the works to. But the attention paid to him now will hopefully prevent future museums from accepting more forgeries. The exhibition will run through May. ARCA offered advice with respect to the possible ways the law regulates (or to be more accurate has difficulty regulating) these forgeries and donations.

Accounts of Looting at El-Hibeh in Egypt

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:58:00 +0000

"Looting is ongoing, there is no protection for the site"
-Carol Redmount, archaeologist

Marco Werman of PRI talks with archaeologist Carol Redmount about ongoing looting at El-Hibeh in Egypt. In the interview which is embedded below Redmount notes that a criminal enterprise which has "mafia-like" characteristics is systematically looting the site. The leader of the operation is allegedly an escaped prisoner. No security is protecting the site.

I recommend clicking through to see a slideshow of discarded human remains and looted graves. Site protection is the first and probably most important step which can be taken here. Protections at Egypt's points of export and importing checkpoints cannot undo the damage being done here. The looters themselves are motivated by a vulnerable resource and economic hardship. You can follow this site on a facebook site Redmount has created to track the situation and offer assistance.

The facebook page notes a first-hand account from Redmount:

When I returned to Cairo from our dig house last week and our van passed the site heading for the eastern desert highway, we saw about ten men openly looting the mound and desert behind (we have pictures of some of them), with conveniently parked motorcycles nearby. One of our drivers took the same road this past Friday and reported that again numerous men were busy with wholesale looting of the site in broad daylight. This is an on-going crisis. They are destroying the site. The SCA officials have tried everything they could to get the looting to stop. Nothing seems to be having any effect. This is something police and security seem to be ignoring, turning a blind eye to, or worse. We started the Save Hibeh facebook page because we are at our wits end as to what else to do . . .

The solution is for Egypt's authorities to raise the level of security at this site and sites like it, or to enlist the assistance of other agencies from UNESCO or Italy's Carabinieri. We can all collectively pressure Egypt from afar to take these steps, but a nation controls the protection of its own heritage.

Our next-best option is to stop buying the shabtis and kinds of salable objects that come from sites like this without complete histories, adequately documented.

Andrea Crossan, Egypt Looters Ransack Archaeological Sites PRI’s The World (2012), http://www.theworld.org/2012/03/egypt-looters-ransack-sites/ (last visited Mar 28, 2012).

Connecting Art and Drug Crime

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:00:00 +0000

LS Lowry's The Viaduct, stolen in 2007

We can make at least one more connection between the drug trade and art theft. A number of stolen artworks have been recovered near Manchester. The investigation was primarily aimed at the sale of illegal narcotics, the paintings were ancillary to that investigation. The theft of the paintings in 2007 was a troubling example of a violent art theft:

A man posing as a postman knocked on the Aird family's door in Cheadle Hulme. When Louise Aird, who was carrying the couple's two-year-old daughter Sabrina in her arms, opened the door, she was confronted by Miller brandishing a 10-inch knife. Three other men followed him into the house. "They tied me up with a cable and had a knife in my back," Aird, 46, said. "They said they would slit my throat. Then they said they would kill the baby if we moved, that's what they kept saying. They took everything out of the bottom half of the house."

The four men stole 14 pieces of art. In 2009 one of the thieves was jailed, while three remain at large. The two arrests in connection with this drug raid do not appear to have a connection to the theft itself. Rather the arrested men acquired the paintings through the black market. Though these works are well known and could not have been sold on the open market, these paintings do have value on the black market as leverage. The connections between other criminal activity and art theft are often discussed, but seldom shown in such sharp contrast as we see in this case. Interesting that the defendants thought the police were investigating them for the art, when it was a drug investigation instead that led to the recovery.

Victim of LS Lowry paintings robbery relieved after thieves jailed, the Guardian, March 22, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/mar/22/ls-lowry-paintings-robbery (last visited Mar 22, 2012).
LS Lowry Masterpieces Found In Anti-Drugs Raid In Liverpool, The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/21/ls-lowry-masterpieces-worth-17m-found-liverpool-anti-drugs-raid_n_1370727.html (last visited Mar 22, 2012).

Cultural Justice

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fincham) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:00:00 +0000

Houston's Fourth Ward/Freedmen's Town

I have posted on SSRN a working paper "Justice and the Cultural Heritage Movement: Using Environmental Justice to Appraise Art and Antiquities Disputes" which attempts to make connections between the environment and culture.

The piece introduces the concept of cultural justice. It uses the recent scholarship examining environmental justice to apply critical scrutiny to the calls for repatriation of cultural heritage (including art and antiquities). The paper applies Rawls’s theory of justice to cultural heritage and presents a taxonomy of cultural justice examining in detail the distributive, procedural, corrective and social aspects.

The environmental justice movement has been an important grassroots effort which allows minority and underpriviliged communities to challenge environmental harms. It has its roots in Houston. I use as a starting point the cultural harm which has taken place here in Houston to a neighborhood called the Fourth Ward, at one time referred to as the "Harlem of the South", which has fallen victim to cultural loss and over-development. In the piece I work to make broader observations about culture, the environment, and justice, focusing specifically on antiquities law and policy. It is my hope that by using justice we can begin to move beyond the source/market entrenchment and craft real solutions. I would of course welcome any comments or criticisms (derek.fincham 'at' gmail.com).