The Acquisition and Exhibition of Classical Antiquities: Professional, Legal, and Ethical Perspectives

Conclusion

155 Conclusion Robin F. Rhodes P        responses delivered at the symposium“The Acquisition and Exhibition of Classical Antiquities: Professional, Legal, and Ethical Perspectives ,”held on February 24, 2007, in the Snite Museum of Art at the University of Notre Dame. Not transcribed here is the lively open discussion that followed both the morning and the afternoon sessions. A DVD archive of the entire proceedings exists in the collection of the Hesburgh Library at Notre Dame and in the Snite Museum. The range of experience and perspective of the symposium participants was broad, including at one end of the spectrum the American director of one of the world’s great encyclopedic museums , at the other an Italian field archaeologist charged, among other things, with the responsibility of protecting provincial archaeological sites in Sicily from looting. The great divide between these two perspectives still seems to surround the issues of context and accessibility. Encyclopedic museum directors argue that the multicultural context of objects in an encyclopedic museum and their ability through their wide accessibility to provide multicultural education to a huge international audience should be valued above the more narrowly defined context of archaeological provenience. The archaeologist, on the other hand, argues that without an understanding of the original context of the object (which the illicit trade in antiquities obscures or destroys completely ), the value of the object both as a cultural artifact and as a work of art is profoundly and permanently compromised. Further, the continued support of the illicit antiquities market through the purchase of unprovenanced or insufficiently provenanced objects ensures the continued destruction of archaeological sites and exposes as moral posturing the claim of encyclopedic museums to be institutions committed to preservation and education. Legal perspectives can also present seemingly paradoxical dichotomies . On the one hand, it was argued that the historically irresponsible acquisitions policies of some museums, which reflect a lack of respect for the laws of countries of origin, contribute directly to the trade in illicit antiquities and to the consequent destruction of knowledge and that, therefore, the tax-exempt status of these museums as institutions of education should by law be revoked . On the other hand, the question was raised of whether, in the context of international law, a modern nation that cannot or will not protect its cultural heritage should be allowed sole responsibility for the stewardship of objects originally created in a geographical area that now lies within the boundaries of that nation. Field archaeologists and museum professionals alike acknowledged this dichotomy as reflective of the paradoxical structure of a modern world that is increasingly globalized and, at the same time, increasingly Balkanized through narrow, nationalistic, political agendas. And while the utilitarian analysis employed by some encyclopedicmuseumsto justify the acquisition of antiquities of questionable provenance (the more people who see them, the greater the good) has seemed self-serving and disingenuous to some field archaeologists , this symposium revealed a real convergence of goals between the director of the Chicago Art Institute and the former director of the American School excavations at Ancient Corinth (itself the victim of an antiquities-market-inspired heist).Both called for the opening up of access to the world’s antiquities, the former through the multiplication of encyclopedic museums throughout 156 Robin F. Rhodes the world, the latter through the obligatory worldwide sharing of antiquities, effected by means of an immediate and radical increase in extended loans of antiquities and traveling exhibitions. Everyone agrees that looting is bad. And it is undeniable that the looting of ancient sites is a direct result of the international market for illicit antiquities. The Corinth theft was presented as a paradigm of that causal relationship and of the wide circle of its tragic consequences, and of the need to protect archaeological sites and museums from depredation. It was also presented as a paradigm of the practicalities of response to such crime. A remarkably direct educational approach to preventing the destruction of cultural heritage was presented in a description of a new orientation program on the responsibilities of U.S. troops toward cultural property, designed and implemented by the new president of the Archaeological Institute of America and required of every American soldier before deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan. And the internet was presented as an immensely complicating new factor in the regulation of the antiquities market. Inevitably, the question raised was, What do museums and other institutions of...